User talk:OSX

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

Photos of Proton cars in Australia[edit]

1995-1996 Proton Wira XLi sedan 01.jpg
1995-1996 Proton Wira XLi sedan 02.jpg
2012 Proton Prevé (CR) GX sedan (2012-10-26) 01.jpg

Hi OSX, A pleasure to be of acquaintance ! Lately I've taken a great interest in photography, Wikimedia Commons and Flickr. I must say your collection of car photos is among the best, if not THE best on Wikimedia Commons. Big kudos to you man, it must have taken a lot of time and effort. Still, you've release all of your photos to the Public Domain despite all the trouble, you have my utmost respect !

If it's not too much to ask, would it be possible if you could photograph some Proton cars too ? I love your 2 photos of the Proton Wira.

I would be absolutely delighted if you could snap more photos of other Proton models for the Commons ! I understand that they're rare in Australia, and if it's not possible, no worries, I won't bug or trouble you hereafter.

Much thanks, and please keep up the excellent work ! Cheers - Aero777 (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for your very kind message. It is good to know people enjoy viewing my work as it is very time consuming. I am currently not taking any more pictures until I can clear-out my backlog of photos taken between December 2011 and October 2012. Once this is done I will probably resume photographing cars once more. I have gotten a bit tired of editing all the photos and I am finding it difficult to motivate myself to get on with the job so to speak (taking the photos is the easy part).
When I do resume, I will certainly be on the look out for Protons as they are a rarer find in Australia and I have a strong bias for rarer models. Regards, OSX (talkcontributions) 08:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't mention it man, you're most welcomed ! I hope that all of your hard work will pay off one day. It's a shame that society never appreciates the works of great Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributors, only Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributors themselves will understand the sheer amount of sacrifice involved. But I've always believe that one's good deeds are always returned, in one way or another. :)
In any case, everyone needs the odd break, I completely understand your situation. I almost 'lost hope' once myself, but I guess that one's love and passion for his/her work is even harder to quell than a 1-year backlog of photos ! haha Cheers, and thanks once again for your efforts. :) - Aero777 (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Long time no talk ! Haha I'd like to thank you very much for uploading the 6 photos of Proton cars at the 2012 Australian International Motor Show ( two each of the Exora, Prevé and Satria Neo S2000 ). I'm aware that it's been almost 6 months since you've uploaded them, but I still want to extend my gratitude nonetheless !
Thanks again, - Aero777 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for the message. Much appreciated :) OSX (talkcontributions) 00:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Can you please remove the white spaces (' ') at CDL, Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok done, my apologies for that. Cheers, OSX (talkcontributions) 10:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, i mean you should remove the " ". Example:
- {{move cat | Holden VE II Commodore Omega | Holden Commodore (VE II) Omega | Disambiguation as per convention: [[Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categories]]}}
+ {{move cat|Holden VE II Commodore Omega|Holden Commodore (VE II) Omega|Disambiguation as per convention: [[Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categories]]}}

--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I did a double take on it myself and worked out what you mean after my initial edit: [1]. My apologies for wasting you time. OSX (talkcontributions) 11:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for helping with category work :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Chevrolet C-10 trucks[edit]

Could you please be a little bit more careful with the use of the "Chevrolet C-10" category, when using HotCat? This category is only intended for the 1964-1985 Brazilian C-10, but you seem to often put US C/K-Series trucks in it... Thanks for your attention to this point.
BarnCas (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I will take more in care in the future with images related to these categories. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I created the "Chevrolet C-10 (Brazil)" category and added a {{Category redirect|}} to the "Chevrolet C-10" one, so I hope it won't be (too much Clin ) misused.
BarnCas (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


You have been doing a lot of work recently! Very nice. I would give you some kind of award but I don't think that would be in your style (nor in mine). mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I have been busy fixing up categories to match Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categories. I see you continue to upload the highest-quality car photos here of any contributor! This W124 looks lovely—a great photo of one of my favourite cars. Merry Christmas! OSX (talkcontributions) 03:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It was nice of them to park it on a lawn all alone and at this angle. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 00:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


日本語で失礼します。先日改名作業を行いましたCategory:Mazda Familia (FA1)Category:Mazda Familia (FA2)ですが、日本語圏の事情を考慮していないだけでなく、マツダ公式の形式名とも食い違う大きな問題があります。「FA1」および「FA2」が何処から来ている形式名なのか、Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:Mazda Familia (FA1)Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:Mazda Familia (FA2)で説明して頂きたいと思います。--Taisyo (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Sigma[edit]

I am not so sure about the deletion of the admittedly awkward category for the US market "Sigma". What should we call it? This car, the hardtop model of the previous generation Galant, was sold as the Sapporo in Europe and as the Mitsubishi Sigma in North America. Awkward, since both of those names have been used seemingly at random by MMC in various markets over the years. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

HI, I merged the category due to it only containing one image. However, I think "Mitsubishi Sigma (North America)" or "Mitsubishi Sigma (United States)" if not sold in Canada could work, fitting in with Category:Mitsubishi Sigma (Australia). Maybe Category:Mitsubishi Sigma (Mitsubishi Diamante) should be renamed to Category:Mitsubishi Sigma (Europe). OSX (talkcontributions) 15:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure about Canada, it is surprisingly hard to find out anything about our northern neighbours - especially since Google knows that I am not there. I second the renaming of the European Sigma category, this would also help resolve the North American Sigma concerns. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok all done now. OSX (talkcontributions) 02:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

NZ Car Freak's request[edit]

FYI: I've tagged those files for speedy deletion. Please see my talk page for details. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ...and now they're gone. De728631 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves[edit]

Hello, Please sign (--~~~~ your requests. See instructions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Nuisance Category:Rover_P4[edit]

Hi OSX, did you truly have no idea of the nuisance you have created and repeated? Eddaido (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. What I see is thousands of new images available to the project that will take a little while to get into the exact categories. For some vehicles, I am not familiar enough with them to know the exact category. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? Not one of those Rover images could be wanted by anyone but the owner of the vehicle concerned. Perhaps one of the Pininfarina car as a record. Maybe you did not understand that Flickr is combed all the time by eager Wikimedia reps looking for the desirable or informative. Accordingly what remains in Flickr is very new or is pure dross which you have gathered up in vast bulk in a momentary misguided burst of enthusiasm. Surely an editor of your standing can organise some way to solve this.
why have this image in Wikimedia?
what is to be done about cases like this where the file name is so hopelessly wrong?
I see something has been done about that page. Why would an encyclopaedia keep a picture of a rotted Rover with a dingo on its roof? Well OK maybe it says something about dingos? Thanks for doing something about it though I'm not clear what it was! Regards from simple-minded unhappy Eddaido (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to disagree. We now have more images of this car. How is that a bad thing? Any images that others deem low quality can be nominated for deletion very easily. Go to your preferences, select the tab "gadgets", then look under "Maintenance tools" to tick "AjaxQuickDelete". Then when you load an image not up to standard, click "Nominate for deletion" on the left sidebar. A dialogue box will come up, simply state "low quality". In most cases it will be deleted without question. I do this all the time. FYI, I have nominated the dingo image for you. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
To tell you the truth I thought Cyclops & Dingo by Riley from Christchurch, New Zealand was funny. I'll get to work on this page shortly (I didn't know or had forgotten about nominate for deletion). Again everyone already wants a photo of their own Daimler / XJ6 or Daimler / Mark II on record and now you have added around 70 more! How can this possibly be a good thing for the project?
You ask how is this a bad thing? Well, you have to wade through an awful lot of total rubbish to find anything useful — do you ever try to make use of these images? They have always been available to the project, you just proved it in the crudest possible way. It is like some upload 120 very slightly different technically superb shots of the same undistinguished vehicle. I suppose those vehicles were in museum condition but this too is a form of overkill isn't it? Killing is the right kind of terminology, causing to sink by overloading provides the same message and it is overloading with rubbish. Its like some new curator at the Art Gallery of NSW decided that all NSW residents (even those arrived this morning from Auckland) had a right to have all their daubs hung there for public delectation. Taxpayers will have to pay for the (Royal!) Botanic Gardens to be covered with multi-story buildings to house them all.
Discrimination, OSX, can be a very good thing. Sorry if I go on a bit but . . ..
Hah, nominations for deletion. Great. Cheering up, Eddaido (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Incorrectly named images can be renamed, see Commons:File renaming. I have corrected the example provided. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"The function is only available to administrators and file movers" it says on Commons:file renaming. Eddaido (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Requests to become a filemover are listed at Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover. I am sure if you apply you will be granted file mover rights. OSX (talkcontributions) 09:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello. Is it so difficult to categorise? (one example) --Cjp24 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File redirects[edit]


Do not blank file redirects - I will restore any that are deleted unless the redirect is actively misleading. There is no reason to delete these files in such cases, and potential harm can result.

If you continue to blank them and tag them incorrectly with {{speedy}} I raise your actions at the AN.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


He might need a hand (never thought I'd suggest that), see here. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. While the photos are bad, he's no thief. I'm on to it now. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers, things are not looking good for him... it seems a witch hunt has began. OSX (talkcontributions) 11:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Crazy. I opened a request for more eyes on this here, but I am not sure that it will be any help. If you think it might be better to just stick to the DR entry then I will stick to that. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, this is great. Thank you for posting elsewhere, I think more eyes need to be onto this case. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it seemed that the first sets of eyes were quite willing to look again. Good admin, I'd vote for reelection. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it was very good of Hedwig in Washington so remove the block. However, our job is still not done as we still have the main discussion surrounding his photos to finish. OSX (talkcontributions) 03:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems not to be a problem. The deletion debate might actually be very useful, should something like this pop up again in fifty years when we are all dead and gone. On a similar matter, I have uploaded a few photos taken by my dad, uncle, and mother (with their permission, naturally). Should I force them to go through the OTRS process? I can't imagine having to explain this kind of email exchange to my dad; he is happy to give his photos away but present him with all of that legal looking stuff and he will buck wildly... And my uncle doesn't really speak English, so that could also be fun. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: I agree. If you have permission from a family member to upload, there should be no debate. You'd have to be extremely unlucky for a family member to get upset about you uploading a photo of a car they took to Wiki Commons and for them to not fully realise the extent of what Creative Commons licensing means. OSX (talkcontributions) 03:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: Also, I too worry about someone deleting my photos en masse well into the future. I therefore disclose as much information as possible (including exact EXIF date taken, EXIF geocoding so you could make a map of where I have been and use Google Street View to verify the locations based on the background, etc), full public domain licencing, and I ensure I upload a photo at Commons first before I upload it at Flickr. I don't want any issues later on when I'm not around to defend myself. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well we all should worry if others think that using EXIF to base everything on the type of equipment used makes it a solid argument for grounds that the uploads are copyright violations. Really it should be used as part of any evidence that proves it, not suggests it. Bidgee (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I just want to be as careful as possible. Some of the editors here can be overzealous at times in exercising their best impersonation of Sherlock Holmes. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks OSX. For the record I reported the block on Com:ANU#Unjustified block. @Mr.choppers: Technically yes, practically, well... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I hope you do not get into trouble because of that! You are correct in stating that it worked. If I was an outsider in your shoes, I could have easily made the same error. It would take days to go through BD's complete history for full context. OSX (talkcontributions) 03:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

File:1995-1997 Toyota Camry (SXV10R) CSi station wagon 04.jpg[edit]

Once I closed your more than two hundred requests for deletion of your own uploads and I think, that I understand, what kind of photos you nominate for deletion. This photo is also such. If you think, that the photo is bad, then I can delete it. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo. Thank you for your message. It is true that I have been nominating my older circa 2008 images taken with a cheap Nokia camera phone for deletion. However, I only do this once better photo(s) of the same car exist of the same trim/year range. Rarely are the photos taken by my old Nokia phone any good. Once I have photographed a better example of a 1995–1997 Toyota Camry (SXV10R) CSi station wagon I will likely nominate it for deletion. Best regards, OSX (talkcontributions) 01:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi OS X. Don't know if you noticed this and the recommendation to contact a photographer so here I am because at least one of the pictures is yours.

Would you be able to contact the organisation concerned in Springwood NSW? I cannot cause troubles as I have a good association with some of the prominent members which I need to preserve for WP. In spite of requests not one of their members has ever allowed WP/WM to use one of their photos which I feel quite strongly about that but needs must stay silent though more than a little p'ed off to make the discovery.

Main page

Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as my photos are released into the public domain, there is no actual infringement. I have no problem with other people using my photos for any purpose. Thank you for the heads-up nonetheless. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Some people have all the answers. I've just talked to Ian Johnson who made friendly and obliging noises though he is currently overseas and may not get it done instantly and I'll keep an eye on developments. Eddaido (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I have been unfair to Eddaido?[edit]


I have recently had a disagreement with Eddaido regarding categorization on Commons, specifically the relationship of Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus to Category:Alvis 12/75. From my perspective, the matter in dispute appears to be a simple case of properly applying the Commons:OVERCAT policy. Because of your experience regarding automobile-related categorization, I greatly value your perspective and (in this situation) your neutrality. In your opinion, do you think that I have either been unfair to Eddaido in this discussion or am in the wrong regarding my interpretation of Commons policy? Thanks so much for considering my request. All the best!

Michael Barera (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles in Maldonado Department[edit]

Hi, OSX! I hope that you like the car photos I took last Saturday. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Great photos! I have added a couple to the pages. Thanks for sharing these ones. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cat removal[edit]

Can you explain this edit? The category presumably refers to the car at center. Are you saying that it is a misidentification, or that there is no reason for a category for this car, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As per COM:CAT, it is advisable to stick to the "main subject" and "noteworthy features of the image" when categorising photos. The cars found incidentally in pictures of streetscapes are not noteworthy. In this case, the noteworthy feature is the art on the cars, but not the cars themselves, which only make up a small part of the photo and do not represent a stock configuration.
The photo illustrates the subject of art cars very well. However, I do not believe it to be very useful at illustrating Kia Rio (DC) automobiles which the image is also categorised in because it contains a glimpse of the said vehicle in an unrepresentative condition.
If it bothers you to have these cars as "unidentified" so to speak (because there is not a category to specify exactly what they are), then Commons is better served by using annotations on the image itself or by placing a note in the description. Placing such images in the actual car categories is not very useful because those looking for pictures of Kia Rios are not going to find this example particularly useful. OSX (talkcontributions) 16:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not the one who put the category there, but I think with any decent picture of an art car it's worth having the make & model as a category. I don't see any other way someone could sanely track down images of art cars of a particular make & model. There isn't really a "main subject" of the photo, but this car is front and center, as "main" as anything in it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the car is the main subject, but it is the car in its artistic form, not as a conventional car would look. In reality, the Kia Rio is like a mannequin for the art. No one looking for photos of Kia Rios is going to find this image useful, the main subject is artwork. OSX (talkcontributions) 02:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverts in closed deletion requests[edit]

Hi, could you explain your reverts in allready closed deletion discussions like this, this, this and this edit?--Wdwd (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

See also here. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the closing note, "no rationale for deletion" is invalid, which is completely false. I had stated "low quality file", which correlates with Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Stop attempting to create linkrot by deleting filenames: it's intentional, not a bug, that the software creates a redirect when a page is moved. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend. I have been told by admins that it is okay to delete redirects that are recently created and that are misleading. If the redirect has the year as 2006 and the actual year as 2008, this is completely misleading. These files only existed at the old names for 2 days. OSX (talkcontributions) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Hello, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:OSX. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have responded there. OSX (talkcontributions) 12:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits to User talk:Bull-Doser (1 Feb 2016 12:03 to 12:17)[edit]

Hi there,

Could you please clarify what you did to Bull-Doser's talk page with the set of edits from 12:03 to 12:17 on 1 Feb 2016?

In particular, there were a set of 107 auto-notification edits (here) that were immediately reverted (here) and a further removal of some older notifications.

I appreciate that there may have been a good reason for it, but if so, the edit summaries don't make this clear at all. Has this material been archived?

All the best,

Ubcule (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A whole bunch of files that I nominated this week had broken automated warning messages posted to Bull-Doser's talk page. These messages were of no value as they were complete gibberish. I therefore deleted them along with a few other old nomination notices from me only (not others users). This was done to make the page more readable and to show more of the relevant information. OSX (talkcontributions) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that the auto-generated warning messages didn't come out correctly. I'm not sure of the legality of users removing their own comments from another's page, though, even if they were boilerplate that's likely to have been acted upon by then.
More seriously, removing the flawed notices without putting anything in their place is unfair on Bull-Doser as- regardless of how he's (not) responded to these notices in the past and how he will (likely not) respond to them in future- he's still entitled to know about possible deletions of materials he's uploaded. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you sought assistance via the usual channels in such cases where you're not sure what the problem (or solution) is.
FWIW, I had originally intended doing that too, but noticed that the warning I got when I tried editing meant that the problem was due to too many templates on the one page and was able to fix it myself by archiving the existing content prior to the problem templates (which going by his activity I assume he's had the chance to read). This has let the newer templates show correctly on the main talk page.
If this happens again, you can archive the parts of the existing content that he's likely to have already seen as described here.
Ubcule (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to retain that many deletion notices? Surely we are better off without them? History shows he never even bothers responding. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree, but I don't think it's for us to start taking that sort of thing into our own hands. He (she?) knows about the problem and has been given reasonable notice of each case.
(It's just a bit unfortunate that the automated tools don't bundle- or make it easy to bundle- consecutive such nominations together into a single notification.)
I felt entitled to archive his talk page because it was necessary for other users to continue communicating with him (due to the problem mentioned above) and it was the standard way of doing things. Ubcule (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)