User talk:Herbythyme/Arc16

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hollicombe beach hug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Iotatau 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Common starfish - torbay.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good quality and interesting --George Chernilevsky 13:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

l'épave

Bonjour. Merci d'avoir apprécié mon épave bretonne, pas parfaitement nette je suis d'accord, mais désormais géocodée. Je suis nouveau, j'aime vos images, et bien sûr, votre jugement !! Au plaisir de vous lire et d'admirer vos oeuvres. ----Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Merci a vous. J'aime Bretagne et la cote et la plage generalement. I read French ok but write it badly . Amicalement --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

The Bill Wyman/Mick Taylor photo is ten times better! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Naajaat panorama 2007-08-09 2 cropped USM downsampled.jpg, which you skillfully repaired for overexposure has been promoted. Thank you for your help!

--Slaunger (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nun's cross

Figured it out now - your gut feeling is right. Tors visible are Yar and Corndon (I've tagged). I cropped the image slightly (to get slightly better balance to FG), in full version Sharp is at extreme right whilst Laughter is just in view at left, directly in line with Hookney. I think Huccaby tor is also visible in centre but its not distinct enough to be worth tagging. Took a pano a bit further along that path, Bellever is clearly visible, as are the ones near two bridges. I think I've also got Great Links too, got to finalise the panos from that day...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling edits (COM:CVU)

Hi Herbythyme,

In case you've missed it, since yesterday the patrolling functinality has been enabled for all edits, no longer just for page creations. This enables us to track, for example, anonymous edits on Commons. I'd like to invite you to check out the Anonymous edits list and maybe patrol part of a day. See also the updated Commons:Patrol.
If you have any questions please leave message on the CVU talkpage, my talkpage or on IRC. -- Krinkle^talk 23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Err :)

Added the cat for Postbridge for the pony (obviously), and can't think of any other cats for Dunnabridge at present - apart from the location catchall of Dartmoor Forest. In two minds as to VI, I'll have a trawl through your images at weekend and look for a obvious one (or few).

As for Kallerna's edit I think the combination of what you two said is right - there is a problematic area there :( That said, Kallerna may be right when he said "could be QI anyway", the problem does not affect the subject...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Added Controlled burn for the swaling as that seems most similar subject cat at present.

As for the Cattewater, I really dislike the "Plymouth Docks" cat, its far too vague for a major port. Is it for all docks in the Plymouth area or just for the one or any of the Navy/Ferry/Commerical/Recreational stuff? Is it only for the docks or is it for the shipping too? Its as good a place as any to put it for now, I'll sort out Plymouth after I'm done with the Geograph dumps for Teignbridge. Tagged a couple things in it.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree (and that gallery like most is in a poor state - maintaining the cats is hard enough!)... this would be the obvious one :)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah point taken and agree. Not entirely sure what to put there though. A pano makes sense but, one with plenty of moorland strikes me as good idea (possibly one of your Beardown ones, I haven't actually uploaded that many myself... Gallery definitely should have a snow subsection--Nilfanion (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Shetland pony - Postbridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --kallerna 14:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts?

This is my best panorama yet I think. Any advice for potential QI (or less likely still, FP)? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Right - I've thought about this!

Let's start with "it is a good image" :)

Then - QI. The right hand side and the bridge look pretty good. However the left bank is not very clear to me. There is a blueish haze (which may be two issues or one). In the distance that is ok but closer it makes for some blur. Might be worth just easing the blue down very slightly and see if that work (maybe a little more sharpening/contrast too). I'd say why not try it - you will at least get other views (some may even be helpful...;)).

FP - yeah well... I happen to think my current one is probably the best non snow pano I've done but it seems I may be wrong :) so my views might not count. I dislike (rather strongly) the "wow" word. To me an awful lot of images there don't have wow for me. I pointed a non wiki person to my images here once & they told me they were like postcards just recording the scene. I think they were being a little insulting but I took it as a compliment because - for an encyclopaedia - that is exactly what they should be! (& the best possible quality). So - to me - FP must be a stage beyond that, it must capture something other than just a standard scene snapshot.

There is no EXIF data on your image so I don't know what time of day it was taken but I would try and get it in early morning light and late evening (depends on the angle of the sun). They are the "golden hours" for photographers and should give you more potential for FP. Early light should also give greater clarity too. The other issue is the bridge only just stands out - low angle light will change that quite a bit but are there other spots you can try (I'm guessing it is close to you - if not, sorry :)).

You already have a good FP candidate (IMO)... The hay bales might well work - it is one I would be happy to have. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as always. I added a couple details to the description (it was taken between noon and 1, I'm fairly sure). I guess the processing with GIMP and hugin nixes the metadata. Your point about the hazy left side is spot on. I'm not sure what happened there to be honest, but I'll try again this afternoon (only chance I likely have to get up there, and it's quite a long walk as well :)). As for the hay bales, I was never really fond of that one. It's pretty low-resolution, and only made up of two images and heavily cropped – not sure why I didn't spend more time on it... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I forgot my SD chip. :( Next weekend I'll try again. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cattewater industrial dock area.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --George Chernilevsky 07:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Controlling gorse on Dartmoor 764.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 07:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Controlling gorse on Dartmoor 755.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good too --George Chernilevsky 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Controlling gorse on Dartmoor 752.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Clear detail, useful image. (I've added it to the en wiki article on gorse.) -- Avenue 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Plymouth breakwater and sea fort s2 hug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments ...as long as you promise to use shorter descriptions! :) Looks excellent. Juliancolton 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Herby, I hate to keep asking you for help but...

I've not been able to get a photo to fit an infobox for Sterling Campbell, the drummer of David Bowie's backing bands, in particular. I uploaded a stage photo, with a fair photo of him to the right. Do you think you might be able to extract just him, or just him with Bowie well enough to place in an infobox for him? Honestly, there's little info and no other photos I could find of him.. if you could try, I'd be indebted! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One last request for a while

The prolific blues player and songwriter, Willie Dixon, (who provided hit song after hit song by such bands as Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, and many more) took me 3 years to find a CC-BY photo. Sadly, it's really dark. Any way you can lighten it some? I'll quit harassing you for awhile after this! Please, can you help? I realize that last request and this are probably the two worst photos I've uploaded ever. The photo is here: [1] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Birch tor s1 hug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --Ankara 18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! F79 at Drakes island P sound.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI photo of Naval ship --George Chernilevsky 09:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RFA Gold Rover (A271) P sound.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 14:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drakes island P sound.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. -- Smial 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! P harbour s1 hug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very interesting view, QI. -- Smial 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bennett's cross.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice quality, colors and composition --George Chernilevsky 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Honeybags etc s1 hug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. Lycaon 14:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

COM:FPC

Ich hope that you not forgot it :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Salcombe

Geograph imagery being substandard? I'd have never have guessed :) I didn't get as far as that yesterday, only got as far as Thurlestone, surf was slightly on 'intense' side there (may upload/send) later. As for Salcombe, I do have a couple old days to review, may have something in those... I'm thinking I may have a drive around sometime and just get pics of of the various villages. Trouble is if its decent weather I'd want to get a walk in, and if its not what's the point in taking pics?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just Salcombe is fine really, will probably put them in the Kingsbridge estuary cat at a later date... That said I think Category:Panoramics of Devon should be created given we both like making those things :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when you "corrected" the tilt on that Start bay image you rotated it in the wrong direction! --Nilfanion (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: weather

You're not very fair-play, my friend... Lac d'Estaing, Hautes-Pyrénées (nice place !), is submitted to spanish weather system, isn't it ?? . Very happy to support your nice image, and to read your ever relevant comments about pictures (especially mine). Many thanks !----Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! North over Start Bay from Beesands.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Henri Bouley statue

Hello, I'm sorry, due to my bad English, I don't understand what do you want to say with "definite tilt". Is it a perspective problem ? Am I wrong somewhere ? Maybe I was too close to the subject ? Thanks for answering.--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem with your English at all :). Looking at the statue I would expect the plinth to be level - it tilts CW (clockwise) as do the trees? I know there are issues on Commons with "being level" (my last one was 0.18 degrees out...) but I'd prefer to say something that may help others. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Merci, je crois que j'ai compris !! I'll upload another version. Maybe I was drunk the day I took this picture. Again.... Thanks for taking care of my health...--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salcombe s2 hug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salcombe s8 hug.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --George Chernilevsky 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Happy Easter!!!

Thank you very much for my coil-knot!

--Skipper Michael (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bit you are a little premature. I was going to say that it could be challened and I see it has been :(. The dust spots certainly need sorting out. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Dunster Yarn Market.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Was the picture really taken from inside the opposite house? But the view angle wasn't correct either. Changed location. Technically, File:Dunster Yarn Market.jpg shows more details under the roof. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The location looks better, but I suspect it was probably taken from the opposite pavement and not centre of the road :) My initial "technical" comment referred to things like sharpness and noise, as this image is noticeably better than the alternatives in that sense. Two specific concerns with File:Dunster Yarn Market.jpg: The image is backlit, resulting in uneven lighting across the subject (and most of it in shade), and there is noticeable perspective distortion (you can see the floor and the underside of the roof). The nominated image has better lighting, and the different perspective gives a more accurate view of the architecture.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Central perspective is the principle of photography, and isn't a distortion. Although often unwanted in architecture pgotography. But for this motif, that's what I like about the other image. Both perspetive and light give insight in the interior. But dont't prefer it, am  Neutral. Sharpness and noise are to be assessed in review size, where the difference isn't relevant. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support While I think that the people in File:Dunster_Yarn_Market_from_north.JPG suggest how the structure is used, and the flag is not cut off at the top, I think this one best meets the criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to have you on the team again! –Tryphon^☂ 19:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay! :) Glad to see you've decided to pick up the old mop once again. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed! Just to note, I removed your rollback and patroller rights. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all :) I'll not be as active as I was but I see that junk is still junk and the broom seems to work, the cobwebs will be off it soon I'm sure! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

wb from me too :) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

CU tools reinstated per Eugene's meta request. Welcome back. Cheers, — Dferg (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And used :) thanks. See CU list! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I set it on "digest mode" these days so messages will arrive with some delay. — Dferg (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

About deletions

will you answer me larsvupiti alis thbadwolf

I have full parents permession to thise pics, tjeck www.modeltyper.dk befor deleted them ask me

Hey what im i doing wong, is not allowed to show a yong girl please reply larsvupiti alis thebadwolf

When I see things like that, I really wonder about what the role of admins should be :

1. How can you decide unilateraly the deletion of a picture without any DR process ?
2. How can you write "out of scope" when the argument you evoke after is not linked to that reason ?

It seems irregular to deal with files like that. IMO it's not serious for an admin to have such a lack of honesty. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting you along.

The drop down reason is flawed. I only got the tools back yesterday. However the reason I typed in is not. I have real concerns about the age of the girl and hence the legality of the image. That is something I take seriously and always have done. By all means start an undeletion request if you disagree. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Herby's actions 100% here. There are other images on commons which depict breasts, and do not bring into question the subjects age. Given not only the legal issues associated with hosting such material, I feel there is also a moral issue with doing so. Please remember that administrators are not robots and that common sense, and discretion play a larger role in decision making then blindly following process and policy. Tiptoety ^talk 18:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand. But I really think there's sometimes too much "paranoia" about the "apparent look of underage". I also don't understand why nudity of underage people is always linked to possible pedophilia (but I suppose American law is what we have to follow anyway...). Just something: how are we supposed to check the age of the models ? BTW what is underage for American law : 18 or 21 ?

There's actually a bigger issue for which we still haven't found any good response on Commons : how are we supposed to check the consent of models when it comes to nudity or sexuality ? Even the OTRS doesn't seem to be a good response for that. Don't believe I don't care about those subjects. I do. I just don't know how Commons can deal with that and without any clear solutions, there will always be a lack of coherence. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I fully agree with you on the subject of verification of age. I dislike that as much as you (however my response is to delete if the subject's age is questionable). If you think of/find a way to deal with it do let me know and I'd support it if I could. Not in the US so I've no idea of the legality of specific ages (for me the one I deleted could have easily been under 18 tho). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So this is about http://www.flickr.com/photos/40816417@N03/4154516722 by the Flickr-pro account http://www.flickr.com/photos/brittsuza/ - I do not think that there would be any legal problems. Flickr can clearly host it. But I see no good reason to transfer such photos to commons (Twowings uploaded this one), unless one uses them to illustrate a wikipedia article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah... What Flickr can or cannot do is of no interest to me. This is a Foundation website, they wish to have legal content - I find (& still do) the age of the model dubious (whether it is used in an article or not). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But you are not even aware of the law... how did you determine that there was a legal problem that warrented deletion? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your expertise and interests are wide aren't they - my belief is that the model may well be under 18. As such images of her would be against the law for us to host - if the law is 21 then my understanding is still correct. You (& anyone else) is always welcome to ask me about any of my actions - I do hope that you are not taking any undue interest in my voluntary work again though - it does seem to often be your approach on Commons. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What law would make this image illegal if the model were under 18? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The law in Florida as I understand it - what is your estimate of her age? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for guessing the model's age; but for speedy deletions with reference to "legality", you should be able to give a more reliable and verifiable source than your personal reception of foreign law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Given I have to make that attempt in deciding the legality of the image you would not appear to intending to help this discussion sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If we trust her she was 20 in 2009. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm going to reflect on it - do you trust what you see on the internet :)?

I think I'm inclined to undelete maybe but I'd rather think first and act after (& others may have comments which actually assist the discussion too. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No I don't trust everything on the Internet, but either we trust that, either we trust nothing when it comes to nudity. If you look at all the pictures of her Flickr profile, there are new ones regularly, so I guess we can say it's really her who post her pictures and not her former boyfriend for instance. And I really think there are tiny chances that she lies about her own age in order to exhib herself on-line. But I know I might be wrong. Again, if we don't trust such a thing, we shouldn't trust most of the nude pictures on Commons. I'd accept that but again we need some coherence or some pragmatic solutions. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is more likely the photographer tan the subject who is posting, and paying for the pro account. But of all the images from that account on commons, this one was probably among the ones least likely to be a legal problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I am reasonably happy about the legality of the image. I've restored it. As to scope I've suggested a DR - I don't see it as quite "speedy" maybe. Thanks for your helpful approach - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Richmond 1 055.jpg

Question. I hung a {{Delete}} on this because, even though it was obvious to me that it was out of scope -- and therefore should have a {{Speedy delete}} -- I see a lot of similar files going through the longer deletion request process.

Obviously you thought it deserved a speedy. I understand it's a gray area, but perhaps we should be working harder to suggest to editors that they go straight to speedy in similar cases -- or am I missing something? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well....:) I guess it was the behaviour of the user that aroused my interest first. The gallery and maybe an edit or two. That made the image more questionable than it would be on its own. Add the rather unusual user name in and it might be a youngster not quite sure what they are doing and it might not.

For me I have no issues with such things being speedy (I have deleted waay too many to worry much). I guess feel free to tag speedy - any doesn't like it (admin wise) they will remove the tag and suggest DR (at least that is what I would do). However folk vary :) Thanks for dealing with the junk anyway - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

PS - nice images :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the quick and coherent response and for the compliment. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after User:Lk2KOPAH67HGN7yah messed my Talk Page. Occasionally I feel a little exposed with the new gallery patrolling -- it's nice to have the long arm of the law reach out when needed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

en:Smeaton's Tower

How about uploading http://www.totnesolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/DSC09629.jpg to go in place of or in addition to the image at the subject? As you've seen, lighthouses are one of my "things".

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hum - do you really think it is worthwhile? If you actually feel it is of use (on en wp?) then I guess I could. I tend to like the coast too but from the dry side :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it the best image I've seen this week? -- no, that would be this , but it's a nice image and a good deal better than one on the subject page now. If you want to just upload it , I'll tag it and rearrange en:Smeaton's Tower. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - done and here. I do agree the Eilean Donan image is a great one. Commons does have some wonderful images (& some junk - speaking of which if I am around I'll always deal with such as referred to above - let me know if you hit problems). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bielsko-Biała barracks of the k.u.k. Armee

Hi. It isn't a good idea to delete a category

• if the CfD discussion is open and not closed yet
• if some links or redirects lead here ([2])

Please be more carefull. --ŠJů (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to the "be more careful". It was an empty category with no link to any deletion discussion. However I have restored it. I suggest you look through other similar ones which are tagged for speedy deletion to save you and others work. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It was blanked by the user who tagged it - [3]. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I was aware they were the originator of the page and felt it was "housekeeping". In which case they have probably pulled the same trick on the other pages. I'll go revert. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the only contributor to the other similar cats so I guess they are ok. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The core problem is that the Cfd discussion remains too long open and without conclusion. The user founds duplicite categories again and again, instead of wait to moving of the original categories. --ŠJů (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha!

You're right, I am jealous! But I need to figure out the one I have before I upgrade to a 1D.  :) Wknight94 ^talk 16:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now if it had been Nikon D3 that would make me jealous... :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Halllo why are you deleting my pic i have fuul ownership off them www.modeltyper.dk

The images are outside the scope of the project. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

With sadness

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Commons is far more important to me than you are I'm afraid." - masterpiece! 82.11.39.166 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Clovis junior‎

It's back... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Thank you very much! :-) –BruTe ^Talk 09:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem - saves folks work :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:What is the Bible.pdf

Many Wikibooks use PDF versions of their content. And this is why I'm very frustrated that CommonsTicker is defunct. You deleted this file 21 minutes after its nomination, so even if we at Wikibooks had known about the discussion, we wouldn't have had a chance to view the file or respond. Please explain why this was out of scope when it was in use by Wikibooks, as no reasoning is given. -- Adrignola (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok - undeleted. Apologies - there was not the en wb usage on the file page (thought it would have shown up). I have to say if it were not in use I think it would be out of scope (I imagine too that it is scanned and probably a copyvio but that is another matter). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is. The user's contributions have nearly all been tagged as having problems. I don't think they're fully understanding Commons' requirements. Now that I can view it, it would seem as though a subpage with text would have done just fine instead of a PDF. I've noticed that files I've uploaded for use in a book, where I commit a page after uploading the file, don't always show up as in use on the file's page until I null edit the file after saving the page. -- Adrignola (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Can I ask you why did you removed my rollback and patroller? I have been doing good work there patrolling and reverting vandalism and the only cross-wiki concern is my block on es.wiki and the unfair thingy on pl. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There are concerns over your behaviour across wikis given the blocks. For now I think it would be best if you did not have the rights. Give it some time and sort out your other blocks. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again. I haven't done anything here so far since my unblock and I really want to help out sorting this. I don't know really why the cross-wiki. This is Commons. Not these wikis. And go check my contributions, I haven't done anything. If I do anything there, then feel free to remove it. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see here --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Green housing

• • MESSAGE from USER: Green Housing (Sean Pollard)**

Admin HerbyThyme,

You keep deleting my EDUCATIONAL PAGE on Green House Design. IT IS NOT A PROMOTIONAL PAGE, but simply covers the history behind an initial design for Green Homes, a much needed resource on Wiki, since the subject matter is somewhat new and very little has been posted on it. This Green Design was created in a state funded COLLEGE and I'm a UNIVERSITY STUDENT, so everything about the page is educational and informative. Please stop DISCRIMINATING and leave the page posted, as my Professors are reviewing the page and it is being studied by other students. Listing the creator of the design does not make it promotional! Although it may not be a useful resource to YOU, it is educational for the rest of us, unlike your page about your herbs. Please stop attempting to omit this educational material from the public. Any further deletions will lead to a full report to Wikimedia Commons and your superiors. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

• • MESSAGE from USER Green Housing**

I am not hear to endear anyone, simply educate the masses on a new field of study which is not being covered. Many students can benefit from the posting of the deleted information, as well as those seeking guidance in design planning, how this fails to "fit the scope" is not being explained in any of your messages. If "This is a project whose sole purpose it to host media with an educational value for use on other projects," how does a page on Green Design not fit into the scope of this project? By promoting a new subject? I also noticed you erased my previous talk comment, but left the others- is this also a standard, ethical practice of yours? Such discriminatory practices are a contradiction to the site as well as a hinderance to educational information that matters- unlike your posted picture of a frozen herb. In a nutshell, YOU'RE an IDIOT with entirely to much free time on your hands. Thanks for uneducating us!

Licence Violation for bntlogo.png

Hello Herbythyme

Could you please help me with this? The image is copyrighted by Brave New Talent ltd but we do allow anyone to use it as we are a social netoworking website. Can you advise me on how I could rightfully submit the image?

Is there any way I could contact you? I am really a new user and I got a bit lost with the licences and what I should do.

User:TheDJ

Hi. I was just wondering why you made this change? Admins have these rights by default, don't they? –Tryphon^☂ 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep - my bad - not thinking there & reverted - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not restore archived sections. Users have the right to archive at any time for any reason. If you want to start your own new section, that is fine. But it is inappropriate to readd a section removed by a user. This is standard in all WMF projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, when you do restore things (inappropriately), don't restore all but responses. That is also inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Ha, thanks... I thought I had rollback here, but I have been abusing my global rollback instead. Guess someone should start a global derollback process against me at Meta or something ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ZOMG abuse! well... not really :P Regards to both of you, — Dferg (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Call it a reminder of Commons :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it assigning rights - don't you think this user could be autopatrolled... Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed  Done :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Query about Ottava Rima

Hi there Herby. While I'm an admin on Commons, most of my experience and policy knowledge are from the English Wikipedia. Enwiki has a policy that allows users to remove any comment from their own talk page (en:WP:OWNTALK), and the "removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Does Commons have such a policy, a policy that states the opposite, or no policy on this at all? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons lacks policy about many things and survives on collaborative work by co-operative users. Practice in Commons is that such selective removal (not archiving) of warnings while discussion is in progress is at best unhelpful.

In practice the block was as much for continuing harassment of Eusebius among others here and to provide some space for the community's input. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

TBH, it seems like a thin excuse to rid what others perceive as a nuisance at Commons. Blurpeace 15:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to see what you like, I will see what I see. I see Eusebius harassed and disruptive behaviour. I had no clue that he felt he was in dispute with me. I merely blocked to allow some breathing space. I do think the block should have been extended however given the interactions. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment is a strong word: could you please cite some diffs or link me to where these diffs are located? Also, I've been wondering about the alleged "harassing emails" that you received. Could you go into more depth (e.g., number, overview of content)? Sincerely, Blurpeace 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't play wiki games I'm afraid - that is why I don't work there. The harassment initially was to Eusebius mainly and stuff is around for folk to read. I would have far preferred to share the emails (I see nothing about them that seems to mean they could not be shared) as it would enable me to defend my actions to the community however Rima has stated I am not to do so (that too is harassment to me - accusations that I cannot defend). I had four mails in total and replied to the first.

The constant wiki lawyering is not conducive to getting on with the work that needs doing here I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Was that "wiki lawyering" insult directed at me? My only intent is to better understand the background surrounding Ottava's block. I haven't directly accused you of any bad faith actions thus far. I'll probably review the "harassment" towards Eusebius in the next several hours. Blurpeace 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't insulting anyone, I don't work like that at all and neither should Commons (IMO). My views on the inappropriateness of wikipedia style interaction on Commons is well known.

A major issue I have is that I am accused of misuse of tools here (by Rima) and, because I cannot publish the emails I cannot defend myself. If you don't consider that inappropriate then we have very widely differing views. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ottava Rima is correct. What is said in whatever emails has no bearing on this, and to even mention them and suggest that they are a show of bad behaviour on their part is an abuse of authority as well as a breach of privacy. And you clearly insulted Blurpeace here. I also notice that you seem to go after WR members all over the WMF. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You folk really are quite entertaining - I have no idea who is or is not on WR and care even less. There is enough to do here without wasting my time insulting people. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that you blocked Ottava, and never gave an understandable explanation for why you did that. In the noticeboard discussion you cited his removing content from his own user page, although you waffled on that too. Trying to get you to explain your actions is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I blocked him for disruptive behaviour and harassment - that is what it was for and that is what it said in the log. I'd hoped for better but no matter. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Probably, my action was a bit exaggerated. I won't object to "rollback", but I'm not sure if I need it at the moment. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Depreterdesigns

I am assuming you deleted the above page. It came back. Just thought you would like to know. --Sandahl (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated and dealt with - thanks for your help. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote ( Support,  Oppose or  Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)