User talk:Andy Dingley

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021

ANEFO photographs of Amsterdam[edit]

Hi, can you please wait until I've finished categorising the photos of Amsterdam by a single photographer before you start re-categorising them? It's a bit annoying when the pictures "disappear" from the category I'm working on. You can have a look here to see which category I'm working on at the moment. User:Bardenoki/Amsterdam Regards Bardenoki (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Again: can you please wait until I've finished categorising the photos of Amsterdam by a single photographer before you start re-categorising them? Bardenoki (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Wait until you've finished every photo of Amsterdam by every photographer? No. Don't be ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Your complaints might also carry more weight if you weren't labelling photographs as "in Amsterdam" when they're obviously not: [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, of course not all photographers of ANEFO, but please the one I am working on. It is marked here User:Bardenoki/Amsterdam as "in progress". And yes, I do move the images that are from the photographer and have "Amsterdam" in the description to an appropriate category first. Simply to have fewer images to work with. But I check each one individually and then revert the assignment if necessary. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The Willem van de Poll images are already extensively categorized, there are only a handful that aren't and these are mostly either unidentifiable or just to "Netherlands" at best. Adding "Amsterdam" to them is not constructive: if they were that obvious, they'd already be in there.
Do not use a live content category as a "holding" category. That way is just a quick route to errors. If you really need to move them into a category and back again (I have no idea why, but you're doing lots of these pointless moves) then at least make it something with an obvious name or something redlinked. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, just stop stripping valid categorization from these images: [5] [6] Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mot bikes etc.[edit]

Hi, Andy Dingley!

Pls see, that Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) is a sub-cat of Category:Motorized bicycles

I ask you to note this because of this.

You migth think this area is a little bit confusing ... and you are right!

Exactly this "mixed propulsion bikes" contain lots of surprises :-) as down to f.e. Category:Electric motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive)

By this it is not always possible (or reasonable) to have exact hierarchic structures.

Have a nice sunday! Best --Tom (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) is meant to completely imply it being within Category:Motorized bicycles, then it should be renamed as Category:Motorized bicycles with FWD (front wheel drive). That would be a useful distinction. We already had Category:Front wheel-drive motorcycles, rather than Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive)). OVERCAT would only apply like this if one category completely implies the other, and these do not.
Category:Motorized bicycles are not motorcycles. There's a legal distinction in most countries where they were popular, such that they can be ridden by cyclists who don't have a motorcycle licence. Mopeds are different again (pedals and engine are linked through the transmission), somewhere inbetween. I'm in the UK, we never had this distinction - a VeloSolex was legally a moped and needed the intermediate moped licence (motorised bicycles are still largely illegal in the UK, electric ones are dubious and the whole thing is currently a mess.)
Category:Front wheel-drive motorcycles should have the bicycles moved into this subcategory. FWD motorbikes are rare (there are some all-wheel drive ones too, like Rokon and another one with hydrostatic drive around 2000) and were mostly small-wheel scooters like the Autoped. A handful of early designs had fork-mounted (or even wheel mounted!) engines like the Megola, but these must have been horrible gyroscopes to ride.
Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) should rename to Category:Motorized bicycles with FWD (front wheel drive), then become the obvious intersectional subcategory. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thx for your explanations. If you like to see it, you can read de:Zweirad mit Frontantrieb. This article I have written some years ago. It was also the reason to have a closer look concerning pictures surrounding this article. As I wrote above: "You migth think this area is a little bit confusing ... and you are right!" If you feel a need for a complete new structure I will not oppose. In the meantime it is sufficient useful for the needs for the needs of our authors and possibly readers. Best --Tom (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Then I think the easiest and clearest is to rename Category:Motorcycles with FWD (front wheel drive) to Category:Motorized bicycles with FWD (front wheel drive). Motorised bicycles then stay within it, FWD motorcycles (with no pedal drive) would go to Category:Front wheel-drive motorcycles. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Im not asking for more workload. If you want to do that, I can't stop it. BTW perhaps a question you could help in de:Portal_Diskussion:Auto_und_Motorrad#Gefälschter_Schwimmwagen_in_Commons? we are in discussion about these files the objects are not good or near enough for Category:Replicas of military vehicles as user:Sanandros proposed. They could also be in Category:Dieselpunk but that is even unperfect. I'd like to read your idea. Best --Tom (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. you might think about the differences between "Motorized bicycles" versus "motorcycles" and "motorbikes" whereas bikes are subordinated to cycles ;-) additionally think about that any motor is a engine and engines can be powered by electrical tensions, diesel, petroleum, steam, gasoline ... two stroke, otto ...
  • "the differences between "Motorized bicycles" versus "motorcycles" "
Pretty simple - it's the legal difference (countries vary, but there's broad consistency). Most countries require a motorcycle licence to ride one, but not a bicycle licence (even if some countries don't enforce this). The VeloSolex design was an expensive bicycle and a poor motorcycle, but it gave powered motoring to people who didn't want to get motorcycle licences, so at times it has been a popular vehicle. That's the distinction we should capture.
As to the Schwimmwagen images, then this is why the German wikipedia and its spillage onto Commons is such an unpleasant place. Why do German editors have such a habit of being judgemental about photographers or even, as here, the subjects of those photographs? They have committed no crime for their vehicles existing, yet here they're being treated as some sort of fraudsters. Yet the only error, if that, was in a Commons editor labelling their vehicle as a "Schwimmwagen". For which there is no more evidence than your own labelling of it as a VW concept vehicle.
There is a good basis for defining the VW Schwimmwagen category as "Schwimmwagens" produced by Volkwagen / VAG / Porsche. So that's the Type 128, the Type 166 and the Type 129, together with the first prototypes of the marinised Type 82 (there are plenty of such photos around, when Porsche was testing the design in the fire reservoir). Modern replicas of a Type 166 can be in a sub-category of that, if they're recognised as such. The price of modern Schwimmwagen makes them like Kettenkrad: if they're muddy, they're probably a replica. Some of the examples here are replicas (or were repaired with later VW parts).
Vehicles other than this can go in supercategories of this for "amphibious cars", along with the Amphicar, GPA, Gaz46 etc.
What is this particular vehicle? Well the Type 129 is well known as a Schwimmwagen, but it isn't one of those (it was a Type 128 converted for remote control, with a demolition charge on board and rocket assist for climbing out of the water - it was intended for amphibious assaults). It's possible that this is a Porsche of the 1950s-1960s, as Porsche did produce a number of off-road Beetle derivatives for the forestry service and Bundeswehr. I've checked my few lists of such, but can't see one - but I wouldn't rule it out. More likely is that it's a "Beach Buggy", one of the innumerable specials and custom vehicles built on the ubiquitous Beetle platform chassis. So if we can't identify it as a model, and we have several related photos, give it its own category and describe it with what we do know for sure: that it was seen at a particular location and date, and make no further claims. Pejorative comments on it describing it as "dieselpunk" or comparing it to an Italian character in a Japanese animated film have no place here, nor does claiming that there's a hole in the floor and thus it's somehow not "genuine" (I have a dinghy here with two large and complicated self-baling holes in the floor, but that doesn't stop it being a dinghy. This is clearly a drain plug, removed on land to drain the bilges). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
nice dinghy drain plug
Hi Andy, you should not get angry about new questions which might rise anywhere. Very nice your dinghy, very usefull that plugs, I agree. This special type 129 (I agree) that is a unsolved problem. I hope that the experts which are focusing on media concerning VW-Concept-cars will find a solution. Local state licences are useless concerning international classifications technical equipment over the century's. Best --Tom (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Goedendag mijn beste Andy, klik op Vraag naar beschrijvingen van afbeeldingen om de vertaling te zien. Vriendelijke groeten --Tom (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please 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!


And also:

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 18:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

File:UK101 by Julia Hawkes-Reed.jpg[edit]

When an IP messes with authorship of a contemporary photo, it is no-brainer rollback for me. And it should be for everyone. --jdx Re: 11:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

They're not "messing with it" though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Sniff's family portrait, Moominworld.jpg[edit]

català  Deutsch  English  español  italiano  မြန်မာဘာသာ  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sniff's family portrait, Moominworld.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've left a message for you in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Andy Dingley, I'm the former user SandyShores03. I've left a message in English Wikipedia when you have time, please read it, because I want to talk with you for important something.

Best regards.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I no longer edit at Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Sorry for that. If you prefer can we contact for e-mail, please?

Because my account in Commons is currently blocked and I can't write discussions with my name. And I don't prefer that other user block those IP adresses because there are public conections and I would not want to harm those internet connections.

Best regards. --SandyShores03 (talk · contribs) 10:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley, I talk you with this temporal account to talk with you. But I prefer talk via E-mail. Can you give me your mail for send a message please? Cordial greetings.

JQGK06 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)