User talk:Rodhullandemu

• Archive
• Archive 1

Listed building Scotland template

If you wish for Listed buildings not to use this template, that will require discussion, but as it was added automatically as part of the 2014 WLM competition, for consistency, it will need to be removed from every single file which uses it, not just a couple as you've done.

But you know all this. I don't know why I need to be telling you this. And I don't understand why you can't speak to me before doing anything. It's getting tiresome. Nick (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This category has over 3000 images, most of which are already in subcategories of that category. Whoever decided to add this category automatically does not understand overcategorisation. No discussion is required, but feel free to start one, and I'll put my vastly experienced 2p-worth in. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Now what are you doing ? I've only just started to categorise images in Dundee. I wasn't aware I needed to put images in categories two by fucking two. This is really, really way beyond acceptable behaviour for an administrator. Nick (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What?. If you're an Admin here, you should be well aware that categories normally contain more than one image, unless circumstances conspire to mean there is only one (e.g. results of disambiguation by place), and creating categories with only one image is wasteful of resources and therefore deprecated. It's also unacceptable and unbecoming of an Admin to describe a fellow-Admin's nomination for discussion (that's all it is) as "crap". Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please show where it is stated that categories require more than one image? If that's the case, I expect there will be a shitload of Category:Aircraft by registration needing to be deleted. russavia (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

File:50p a pant (4746731770).jpg

Hi there, I'm new to the discussion of the 50p a pant (4746731770).jpg image and I would have nominated it for deletion but the page is protected. It serves no purpose, it has no educational value and it won't be used in any article so therefor it's out of the Commons:Project scope. So...why was it kept? Lady Lotus (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I determined that the reasons for deleting this image had not changed since the original deletion discussion had reached a consensus to keep the image. Several intermediate discussions had produced neither a new debate nor overturned the original consensus. Also, such frequent deletion nominations are not fruitful in their use of contributors' time; hence protection of the image. Your own proposals do not add to the original discussion so I'm not prepared to reverse my own decision, nor to unprotect the image; feel free to raise this at the appropriate noticeboard. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and if you don't mind I would like to start a discussion at the noticeboard, no disrespect to you or your decision. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)