User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Richard Nevell (WMUK)!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia UK Governance Review Descriptive Chronology v6.pdf[edit]

Richard, I think you will agree that uploading "version 7" over the file named "Wikimedia UK Governance Review Descriptive Chronology v6" is going to result in confusion. Can you upload the new version as a new file and find someone to delete your overwriting of the original? Both should be available here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, did Compass make the changes or was this done by WMUK? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right, though it seemed inevitable that either route will lead to some confusion. People have already linked to version 6, which is now out of date as Compass have made corrections. Having two versions of the same document will lead to fragmentation which I would prefer to avoid, so I replaced the older one to minimise the chance that the inaccuracies in v6 proliferate. As the original has not been deleted it is still available in the file history. If I were to upload v7 under a separate name, how would you suggest I make sure people don't use v6 by mistake? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Delicious carbuncle. The changes to the descriptive chronology were made by Compass after discussion with WMUK. The reason that I suggested to Richard that he upload v7 of the file over v6 was because there are many places around the web that link to the file. In my opinion it is better that those links point to the most accurate and up to date version of the chronology. I hope you would agree. As ever, I am more than happy to engage with you in conversation on this (or indeed any) topic so please do let me know if you have any further questions. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Stevie, in some cases the most recent version is what people will want, but in other cases people will expect to get the version that was released at the time. If they download a file identified as version six, that's what they think they are getting, not version seven. I think it would be best to upload the newer version separately (perhaps as "Wikimedia UK Governance Review Descriptive Chronology" with no version number) and add a note (and link) in the description of this file. Another solution would be to rename this file and leave a redirect. The current situation is, um, less than ideal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The files have been renamed and a redirect left behind so that "v6" has been removed. Hopefully this should prevent confusion arising when people download version 7 expecting version 6. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

WLM in the UK[edit]

Thanks for your interest in this. I'd like to get some proper teams in place now, so we can decide who will be doing what, and I wonder if you could go to Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom/People and move your signature to the correct heading? Many thanks, MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

Hi, thank you for removing the tag of the stonehenge and the advice, and I still would like you to tag them. P.S. I'm new to wikimedia so I don't know a lot about it, if my method of leaving messages of User Talk please tell me about that. Thanks!--Ffffafsd (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to worry, you have got the hang of leaving messages on talk pages. I've added the right tags to your other two pictures, so that's all sorted. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Richard Nevell (WMUK),
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Richard Nevell (WMUK),

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Flint Tower, August 2014.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flint Tower, August 2014.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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.