User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Lochs of North Ayrshire

Could you let me know why you removed 'Lochs of North Ayrshire' from a loch that is in North Ayrshire? 19:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it again if you can tell me which loch you have in mind, but I have been going by the online database provided by the geography dept. of the University of Edinburgh. I'm assuming they know more about it than I do. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rod, I have been working on the recording of the hundreds of Lochs in North, South and East Ayrshire for some time. You have been removing these categories from large numbers of my photographs. I have always had trouble with the Wikimedia categorisation system, but these groupings seem better than 'The Lochs'. RSLlGriffith (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you're saying here; what I have been doing is creating new categories to cover specific lochs, and these will be put into council area categories rather than do that for each image individually; the images inherit the classification via those categories so as to avoid overcategorisation. As to which area a lake is in, it's sometimes unclear, and I go by the reliable sources. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River maps

River Wye

The Wye has got me thinking about some potentially useful content: That is maps of the rivers. There is some stuff in Category:Maps of rivers in the United Kingdom, would it be useful to have a set in basic style of File:MapOfRiverCamelCornwallUK.jpg? I could produce a ton of those from the OS data.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very useful, if time-consuming, to have maps as you suggest. I'd do it myself but am no good with graphics. Certainly I think we have enough structure now to have maps of the major river systems of England, Scotland and Wales. I'm hoping to tackle Northern Ireland next, followed by the rest of Ireland. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The map to right was 30 minutes work - and is a reasonable starting point for these I think. Any comments?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent rendering, but perhaps some labels might assist a viewer e.g. of counties and ideally also of tributaries and notable settlements- perhaps by adding notes would not clutter the image so much? Let me know what you think - and a Happy Christmas! Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thoughts - labels (absolutely), a thicker border for the England/Wales border, adding a within-UK locator inset and highlighting the drainage basin by using a different colour for it. Plotting the watershed will be the time-consuming element of that. I'm not sure about how to handle towns at present, but I'll have a play.
And have a good Christmas too :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated map to tweak the England/Wales border and show the catchment. I need to get my head around labelling properly, but I think the basic map is fine now. As an aside, my workflow gives me a decent estimate for the area of the catchment. eg I make the Wye 4,140km2, the Usk 1,560km2 and 696km2 for the Taff. These figures are classic OR, so they can't be used for WP, but still they are interesting.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, and the latest map is a big step forward. I look forward to seeing labels, but outlining the catchment area is a useful addition. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about labels - I wonder if it would be best to drop the minor streams? That would give a cleaner background and therefore more space for the river labels. The minor streams aren't needed to define the catchment now either.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, if we don't have articles for them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Just for clarity and the record. --Herby talk thyme 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted 2

Dear user Rodhullandemu! Please stop to delete my pictures! --Origati

These are presumably copyrighted works of art displayed in public places- we need to know the countries where they are located. Please see this policy for reasons. You may object to deletion on the pages for each image. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interieur Tram Mulhouse.JPG

Hello Face-smile.svg

I just found the location of the picture, thanks to Google Street View (because I've never been in Utrecht) and thanks to File:Tramway Citadis 302 Mulhousien Utrecht.jpg which gave me some other clues. Indeed, I followed the tram line from this picture on Google Earth and then found some building looking like the ones we can (hardly indeed) notice around the tram. Then it's all good Face-smile.svg.

I try as soon as possible to locate pictures on my own, especially in the area where I live (in Southern Alsace, in France), but sometimes I don't find the place, then I add the "Location possible" tag. I really do understand that you work on the "Location possible" category, and indeed it's a good think trying to empty this category a little. But when I add "Location possible" I try to make the uploader be aware of the fact he could help on geocoding the picture, with very precise coordinates if possible (and with "Location" rather than "Object Location" because we can't see roundels on Google Earth plug-in when there is only "Object Location"). The example of File:Tramway Citadis 302 Mulhousien Utrecht.jpg is very good because after adding "Location possible", an user added very precise coordinates 2 months later, it's the best we can hope for Commons pictures even if it takes time ^^

And the "Location possible" make things easier to find pictures that need a review in a category because it's a template, and then very convenient with CatScan tools. That's why I restored the tag on this tram picture and put some "Estimated location" tags on other pics Face-smile.svg just to make other people work on this later, especially if they live near the place. I hope it's ok for you, and you do a great job Face-smile.svg thanks for all! Have a nice sunday and best wishes for 2012! ^^ Jeriby (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krz oktaederluecke.png

File:Krz oktaederluecke.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Hi, you're receiving this message because you lastly categorized this file I just nominated for deletion. Best regards, Perditax (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More tips for coordinates

Hi. Thanks for your help with locating some of the images on Commons. It appears that some of the coordinates are very specific yet don't quite match the photos, and are not marked as estimates. A few tips that may help:

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, let me know! --Closeapple (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it can be quite difficult sometimes (e.g. for suburbs or cities) to work out which coords to use and I tend there to give a general location and let the user decide on their preferred resolution. I also think "object location" is more useful than "camera location" because the latter is not always easy to work out because of lens focal length, etc- OTOH, the object subject of the image is usually pretty simple to pin down. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon being sentenced to death.jpg

Hi I am making enquiries for a friend who would like to acquire the original Seddon photograph and I wondered if you could help. Many thanks Ron Barker (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to respond by leaving a message on my talk page. Ron Barker (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference b/w location and object location

Hi, May I know the difference b/w location and object location? I saw one of your edits here. --Vaikoovery (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The various templates are described here, but briefly, "Location" says where the camera was, and "Object Location" says where the subject was- but in most cases they are so close together that it's most useful to use only one set of coordinates. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodhullandemu, I got the answer in my talk page by Closeapple. Thanks. --Vaikoovery (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grannie Rock

Great picture. I would have spelled the name Granny Rock. Is there a reason it's Grannie? Something to do with granite? But it's sandstone. cf Grannie stone in Wikipedia. Ggriffit1 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found it as "Grannie" on some website- of course, it's not marked as such on any map. I may have assumed that it is granite due to its relative hardness compared with the surrounding sandstone- granite is not unknown in the area and forms the basis of some of the nearby docks. I haven't, as yet, found anything to confirm or deny this on the web; however, I have plenty of spare time and may need to go to the local librar. I'll get back to you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert Dock Gates - - 1272528.jpg

thumb|Albert Dock Gates - - 1272528

Hi Rodhullandemu,

It seems the above was removed by error from Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool). I restored it and redirected the duplicate category at Category:The Pumphouse there. I'm sure there is a pumphouse elsewhere than in Liverpool. --  Docu  at 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not moved in error. Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool) contains images that have nothing to do with the Albert Dock pumphouse, which is the one to which Category:The Pumphouse should refer. In time, when this job is finished, all will appear clear, but assuming I've made an error in the course of a work in progress without asking me about it isn't helpful. Meanwhile, you've left images on a category redirection page, which is just wrong. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect bot will eventually take care of that. Don't worry about it.
This one might have indeed been added to Category:Pumphouse (Liverpool) by mistake, but "Albert Dock Gates - - 1272528" and all others seem to show the same building. --  Docu  at 12:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to have a separate category for each of the Liverpool docks for which we have images, and then subcategories under each of those for separate buildings situated at those docks (including The Pumphouse, whose category may well need renaming in due course). If necessary I will go there and take pictures of those for which images are needed, but I would need to peruse a map and devise a strategy for this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm glad that I didn't misidentify the building either. I wouldn't attempt to list images of building only in one or the other category though. In a category for a specific building, one would want to find a fairly complete overview about a specific building.
BTW Some time ago I went through Category:Ships at Liverpool and added a few where more than just the ship is visible to Category:Liverpool Docks. --  Docu  at 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wave 3.jpg

This picture was taken in Israel in Netanya Promenade

Object location32° 18′ 38.31″ N, 34° 50′ 40.5″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo

The FOP that applies is {{FoP-Israel}}

I see the file has already been deleted; you might wish to reupload it with the above tag. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're still around

Hi Rodhullandemu, just dropping a friendly note to say hi, missed seeing you about, and I hope you're well - miss you like hell on WP. Long time no see though. Best wishes, BarkingFish (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I doubt I will ever want to return to WP, seeing what it is becoming, but I do appreciate your kind words. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, me too. I miss your input on coordinates. Sorry didn't work out for you; hope you're happy here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I may get back to coordinates but for the moment I'm working on categories- backlogs all over the place. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!


-mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:The Angel, on the corner of Stanhope Street and Caryl Street, Liverpool.jpg

Thanks for the pub ID, that's great, Cheers Rept0n1x (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of HotCat

Hi Rodhullandemu. This is not really an example of how HotCat should be used. --Leyo 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I should have guessed that someone else failed to quote a category properly. I'll get me coat. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Gabriel Goldney, Bart.

Hi, please see [1]; [2]; and [3]. Any other Wilts baronetcy issues? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for fixing all those- I don't know how the original error crept in, but I may have fouled up when I wrote the original articles. Haven't seen any other problems. Thanks again. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Was just distracted IRL with a silly question while creating Category:The Intrepid Fox. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this need to be updated to show only 2 photos remaining ? Thanks.

No, that happens automatically. Thanks for the work you've put in on this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some Loch images in Category:Lochs of Scotland by name , but have not sorted them as I don't want to mess up your list. Cheers. Scotire (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barfad Loch. I put the boathouse back in to Lochs of Dumfries and Galloway, instead of putting it back in to "Kirkcowan". sorry
Lochs of Scotland by name. You may wish to check the few I placed in this category. Not sure if they had to go in both "Lochs of Dumfries and Galloway" as well as "Lochs of Scotland by name".
Category:Lochs of Scotland by name is intended to list categories only. Category:Lochs of Dumfries and Galloway may hold categories and images which do not already fall into categories- of course, if there are a number of them, a new categoory is indicated. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate it if you would leave the Wigtownshire area in the "Category". Thanks

Which category? Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wikicommons link to en.wikipedia

Is there a way of putting a link in the wikicommons page (i.e. for Anwoth, Kirkcudbrightshire) that people could see and be able to click on for an easy directly link to Anwoth in en.wikipedia ? By putting in en:Anwoth it does not appear to have a direct link. Scotire (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite sure what you mean here; en:Anwoth will put the name of the article in the list of interwiki links underneath the Toolbox. If you write [[:en:Anwoth]], that will embed a link in the descriptive text for the page, but if you just want the name of the article to appear, you'd write [[en:Anwoth|Anworth]] which would just show as Anwoth. Is that what you had in mind? Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Streets in Liverpool

Re your note on my page. I am trying to tidy up the pages. Perhaps the "Streets in Liverpool" page is one that needs a discussion. To me it seems very random and full of images of unimportant streets. There are thousands of streets in Liverpool! Just regards other things i am tidying up the images. Too many with the wrong categories probably done by bots. Babydoll0409 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the category "Streets in Liverpool" will eventually split into "Streets in Liverpool City Centre" (which we already have) and suburbs, such as "Street in Aigburth" and "Streets in Toxteth" etc. Whether a street is "important" is subjective, and whether it has a category of its own should depend on how many images there are of it here, not its perceived importance. You have to consider what will happen in ten, twenty or a hundred years time- there may be many more images of a particular street over its lifetime. For the moment, I think individual images should be placed into their own category (if more than one image) and the suburb, e.g. images of Granby Street into Category:Toxteth and Category:Streets in Liverpool until we have a Category:Streets in Toxteth. And the date categories should be there for historical perspective which we are as yet unable to see. If you see it differently, please start a discussion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Streets in (district) sounds good. As it is it is far too random (don't you agree?). Babydoll0409 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would benefit from some subdivision, yes. It's moot whether we should do this now, but if we do, we will be setting up for those to come after us. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories - photos

Someone has done a great job in arranging the main categories, sub-categories, sub-sub-categories etc. in Dumfries and Galloway. Would it be possible to display the main categories with the indented sub-categories under them so that when one is sorting photos they can see into which sub-category to add them, knowing they will automatically go up to the main category ? At present only the main categories are displayed (i.e. in Dumfries and Galloway) and it means double the work-time if people only sorted photos into these displayed main categories and then someone having to re-sort them into the non-displayed sub-categories etc.. Thank you.

If you are in Category:Dumfries and Galloway, you can see lower level categories by clicking on the "x" next to the main category name. If you are using the Cat-a-lot gadget, you can enter the name of a category in the search field, select it with the Enter key, and the sub- (and super-) categories will appear below- it's then a case of selecting the image(s) and copying or moving to the required category. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, that is a big help. I can now click on all the "+" and make a list that I can print for my own use for when I continue with finding and sorting out more photos for Kirkcudbrightshire. Now to find the Cat-a-lot gadget. Scotire (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preferences -> Gadgets -> Tools for categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New topic - should have a new header

re Category:Geograph images in Dumfries and Galloway with the alpha. How would you describe this as a help in looking up photos ? Would each photo in Dumfries and Galloway have to have that at the bottom of the page ? Thanks Scotire (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be a help in looking up photos; there are other categories for that. It's a label to identify Geograph images in a certain location. It's a long project, and these categories should, in time, be refined into subcategories. For further information, you should ask User:Fae. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see there are about 15,000 images so the photos are probably all included (through a hidden category). Handy to Google search a (placename + "Geograph images in Dumfries and Galloway"). Scotire (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dumfries and Galloway

I have finished sorting photos. Thanks for your help. Scotire (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacDui is vandalizing

Ben MacDui removed the wikimedia.commons link from wikipedia article on Cullen. Why did he do this when there are thousands of wikimedia.commons links on wikipedia and wikipedia welcomes links to wikimedia.commons photos ? This is an act of vandalism by Ben MacDui (amongs many other repeats of vandalism when he deletes references from wikipedia) and he should be blocked. Wikimedia condones and encourages people to add links, especially links to wikimedia.commons. Ben MacDui should clearly state his reasons why he is going against wikimedia policy.

I have been blocked from using wikipedia because I said that Cullen is in Banffshire. This is my protest, because as you all well know that Cullen is in Banffshire.

Rod Hull and Emu the puppet - please refrain from deleting my edits in my talk page. Scotire (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to delete personal attacks made on your talk page as they are unacceptable. By all means, if you wish to be blocked here as wellas on WIkipedia, feel free to continue making them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clava cairn (Balnauran of Clava) xx

Sorry, there is a mistake, your are deleting my pictures. There is not any copyright violation. Could you restore the pictures? please. Thank you very much in advance.--Nachosan (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you are not sure of a copyvio is better use COM:DR because sometimes (this is not my fact, I assume good faith always) the author could be offended and Commons could lose a "worker". Thank you again. --Nachosan (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty well clued up on Freedom of panorama issues in the UK, and I was sure that your images did not benefit from it; I cannot undelete your images myself, please ask the administrator who deleted them to reconsider. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your answer. I am trying to undertand COM:FOP. I am informing to the administrator in the undelete resqued. --Nachosan (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have some more images with 2D works from Scotland (and other places), such than these examples:
Do you think they are affected by FOP? Thanks, --Nachosan (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle I adopt with these (and there are many of them) is to ask whether the image is meant to portray the information on the board itself (in which case it's not covered by FOP), or the board in the context of a wider view such that it's of little use to the viewer. In all the above cases, I think there's enough of the copyrighted material visible to breach FOP, but in borderline cases I would start a deletion request rather than a copyvio request to enable other eyes to judge. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I am learning a lot with your comments (sorry but my English is not so good than I would like). --Nachosan (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of county boundaries - the counties are not "former"

The maps of the boundaries of the Counties or Shires of Scotland are recorded in the 2009 Acts of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Statutory Instruments 2009 No. 171. Registers and records. The Fees in the Registers of Scotland Amendment Order 2009. Made 29th April 2009. Coming into force 31st May 2009. Registers of Scotland. Data set of registration county boundaries. 150 pounds. Scotire (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me

Hi, see you are doing a spot of recatting work, can perhaps tell me why the author and other auto-information on some of my uploaded images are disappearing. Here's the latest I noticed I've been recatting photos here occasionally since 2006 (?5?) and this is the first I've seen author=, date= disappear. Any ideas? I can't see any problems with the template nesting. Answer here, I'll monitor. Thanks! // FrankB 15:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was the template nesting; it should have been "after backing down in this manner)}}" and the "}}" ended up orphaned. I've fixed this for you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, should have tried again, I guess. My old eyes don't always see these nesting issues, though I would have expected an errant }} to show. Much appreciated. Been so long since I did much here regularly, is there a link to find out who's around, particularly admins? // FrankB 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't know of a way to see who's editing, but active Admins can probably be seen on the Admin noticeboard. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again, I should have remembered that-it's even on my watch list. Best lunch hour help I've gotten all day! <g> // FrankB 16:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of county boundaries - the counties are not "former"

The maps of the boundaries of the Counties or Shires of Scotland are recorded in the 2009 Acts of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Statutory Instruments 2009 No. 171. Registers and records. The Fees in the Registers of Scotland Amendment Order 2009. Made 29th April 2009. Coming into force 31st May 2009. Registers of Scotland. Data set of registration county boundaries. 150 pounds. Scotire (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Statutory Instrument refers only to "registration counties" so as regards classification of images here is irrelevant since we do not, and never have, classified images using registration counties. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In Scotland all 33 counties are operational in the Land Register

Wikimedia.commons has been using counties for many years and putting tens of thousands of photos into county categories. These same counties are the same as those 33 counties in the Land Register. If you cannot undertstand this, then you should not be, in any shape or form, changing any wikimedia.commons categories. With your knowledge thousand of photos have been sorted into their towns and villages in their counties. Now that thousands have been sorted into their counties, you have been removing the contents from County Categories and placing them into the Council Area category. If you wish to add them to the Council category, no problem, but you should not, and I cannot emphasize enough, that you should NOT be removing them from the County category. Put them back into the County categories. Scotire (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Rod Hull and his sockpuppet emu has been removing Categories from Scottish counties. THIS IS A BLATANT ACT OF VANDALISM. He should be blocked and sacked from being an Administrator. Scotire (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rod, I have given Scotire a final warning on his talk page. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Civil Parishes

(sigh) I wish we hadn't done the Geograph batch upload, as it completely overwhelmed our ability to keep up with uploads. But we can't go back now, and I think useful bot support is coming online at last (Faebot should be able to make a significant impact on England and Wales in long term). Scotland has it worse because of the absence of any real structure below the council areas, meaning a thinking human needs to be in loop.

I will try to spend a fair bit of time working north of the border. My attitude with regards to counties/councils/parishes/whatever at present, is to use feature (ie town/loch/mountain) and council areas only. At the same time, I'll probably just ignore the others - to save time adding/removing/correcting them. I have a list of 2000 categories and 22000 files to check for POV issues (you can guess what they relate to, I can put them on-wiki if interested).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that work arrives more quickly than it can be processed; I have made a start, and at the moment have little else to do (except this week, when I have to be elsewhere during the day). My guideline for the first phase is to tell me at least roughly what there is, and where it is- it also help whether a category should be disambiguated (e.g "Black Loch"). The consensus certainly seems to be council area->place->things at that place, so I'm going with that for now; I'm in two minds as to civil parishes, they are one obvious way of splitting counties but not obvious to users; however, they have been jumbled into existing categories for the settlement of the same name, which is just confusing. But thanks for any help you want to give. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some research on civil parishes, and think they are actually useful - if the confusion with the namesake settlements is avoided. Two reasons: First I finally found some high quality data (see the map to right) and the GRO supplies useful background info on them. Secondly, Historic Scotland uses the civil parishes in its databases (example), and given the current WLM activity this is of high relevance.
I will write a bit on the Scottish divisions RFC with a detailed proposal on how to integrate parishes into the category structure.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Civil Parishes in Aberdeen

I've uploaded this blank map for Aberdeen - it could be used for locator maps. The GRO data needs a bit of cleaning before I can use it, so will take me a while to do all of the country.

However, a more serious concern is the actual boundaries shown: The Aberdeen/Nigg boundary looks wrong; on the old maps the majority of the land south of the Dee is in Nigg. I will contact GRO and see what they can say about that.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good start- but I'm finding so far that the county of Aberdeen is small enough to be divided by districts as in en:Areas of Aberdeen; so the Aberdeen/Nigg boundary may not be that important. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes Aberdeen is a city after all, and its the rural areas that are the issue - urban areas have many more relevant subdivisions. (Note: "County of Aberdeen" is "Aberdeenshire", not the "City of Aberdeen"). The Aberdeen border seems to be that of the burgh in 1975; with "Nigg" being a rump. When it was an administrative area Nigg CP was much bigger - this sort of thing represents the limitations of historical data. Sure its the parishes, but when?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, high quality mapping is from the National Library of Scotland Seventh Series one inch covers the whole country, and 1:25,000 for all but the highlands. These show the parishes, and only significant changes since then have been in vicinity of the major towns, so are usable for rural localisation.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks useful, thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland, as far as I can see from the above, seems to be in good hands, with the possible exception of someone who writes all-caps headings. I'm just on the fringes of WikiMedia, with most of my wiki work being on Council areas are the Wikipedia standard, which makes for easy copying and cross-refs etc. Dividing them is less obvious. Only a minority of councils have area committees, so for a country-consistent next division parishes could be the only way to go. (The only obvious disadvantage would be that a few parishes must be cut by council boundaries - just as Punjab was split between two countries.) I won't pursue area committees here, though we may use them on Familypedia. Robin Patterson (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Liverpool

Thanks for creating Category:Bank of Liverpool, Chester so quickly! Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, it popped up while I was in the middle of something else, so I thought I'd fix it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Adamson pic

Re. the deleted file File:WilliamAdamson.jpg - I have no idea of its license. My edit was purely superficial, and did not note or alter the file's provenance. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Regards, BartBassist (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you're now the proud owner of 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics gold post boxes

Apparently your patently false claim that sole author rights are a myth on Commons carried the day on the second DR, so I hereby present you with 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics gold post boxes. You, Hedwig, Taivo, or anyone else who thinks they have more rights to claim ownership of that work than I do, are now free to 'improve' it as you see fit. Save for removing any future additions of inaccurate and misleading information (which in all likelihood is going to keep happening while Wikipedia exists), I'm done with it. You can all discuss to your heart's content on the talk page how you propose to properly contextualise for future uploaders/re-users a gallery of 100+ images without writing anything 'long' or is an 'article' (which, from where I'm sitting, simply means anything that is text longer than a paragraph), or more likely, you can just do nothing, and abandon any and all future Commons visitors to figuring it all out for themselves, futilely repeating the hundreds of hours of research that has already been done by me. Or worse, you can continue to mislead them with these patently false notions that Wikipedia is the place where they will find that sort of research, in both comprehensive and accurate form (the irony being, you actually have to put in the hours to realise what an utter joke that claim is in the case of a complex and barely documented subject like this). Or maybe you can give me a real good laugh and see what happens when you try to 'improve' Wikipedia by adding my notes to their article - in the process of course reminding them that the purpose of Wikipedia articles is to act as comprehensive and accurate guides to Commons media collections. Good luck with that - given you're all absolutely certain that what I wrote was an 'article', I can't see a single thing that might go wrong with that. Ultra7 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Anyone who wishes to may edit that page, even you. Regards. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your read it, you just have no answers. I can edit the page, you can edit the page, Santa Claus can edit the page. Observations like that don't make a blind bit of difference to the reality on the ground, whether you want to take responsibility for your part it in creating it, or not. Ultra7 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's always welcome, indeed, a boon, when colleagues communicate in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill, and I note you use your customary wit and charm. This conversation is closed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate file renaming

Logan Talk Contributions 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I didn't think the preamble was particularly useful to the filename, but I will retain similar filenames in future. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish parishes

Hi, I assume you are still working on the Scottish mess? I've got around to uploading the full set of parishes-in-council area maps (cf Category:Civil parishes in Scotland). If a parish is in multiple council areas, only that within the relevant council area is shown. These may or may not be useful for your needs...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm still doing preliminary work (resolving clashes across council areas) but I'll use your maps when the time comes. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to finish tidy up over on en, then switch back to Commons and will work at this task too (probably from a different but complementary angle to you).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Steady on - firstly - York was being "spammed" with what appeared to be bot generated placements - in my experience attempts to get such issues solved never really go away - that is why I created the disambiguation page as a sort of firewall - I've had to do it before and it works..

(The reality was that there were many New York type misclassifications - as unlikely as that may seem - it was reality)

However - if you look closely at what I have done you will see that I have cleared out the mess from the Category:York, England category. It no longer contains pictures of Central Park, New York, airports etc etc.. - thus if you truly object to the renamed category you can simply move the its content back to the original title - using CataLot or some other bot.

Simply a few button presses. As I see it you don't have much to complain about in this case.Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving stuff back would bee edit-warring, and I'm not going down that road. I've started a discussion to wider attention. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"reported" copyvio

In the 12/21 AfD you said "Very likely a copyvio given uploader's history, and reported as such." Reported to who????? Wnt (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"To whom". As a {{Copyvio}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions in Scotland

Please explain me in detail the whole thing before I go on then, I don't want to create a mess. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus - tell me if I understood - category by city in Scotland is not necessarily a subset of category by council area? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the four largest cities, they are separate council areas in their own right. In all other cases, cities are subsets of council areas. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a way of moving categories, too? I didn't know. I must know soon!! :) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Catalot will let you select categories as well as files. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for information :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Have you considered running the gauntlet yet? You seem to know more about how to handle this site than most of us here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not sure I'm as knowledgeable as I should be about some issues here, but if you think I could be of some use I'd give it a go. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done here. Please accept if you want to go through with the request. Cheers, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Thanks for the nomination. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  Nederlands  Plattdüütsch  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  slovenčina  svenska  suomi  македонски  русский  հայերեն  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  فارسی  Indonesia  +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Rodhullandemu, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you. I look forward to wielding the mop carefully but effectively. I'm not one to go round spamming pages with thanks, but I do appreciate the support and comments made. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! -FASTILY 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About chilean coat of arms and flag

Rodhullandemu: I request that you revert the two files to the editions with sources. Fry1989 is vandalising because he didn't use any source. Please, see this official document in File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg or this image in File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg. Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not getting involved in the merits of this dispute, that's outside my remit. It's up to you to persuade others that yours is the perferred version; I have no opinion on that, and don't intend to form one. Rodhullandemu (talk)
Just to reiterate my response on the AN page, this user has repeatedly said I don't have sources, which must mean that all 3 I have linked don't exist. I can not possibly be expected to discuss the merits of the matter most important of which are sources when this user does not acknowledge the existence of my sources. For that reason, I actually would like to suggest you remove the text in protection template at the top of the files suggesting this matter can be discussed and then unprotection requested. I support indefinite protection. Fry1989 eh? 03:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rodhullandemu: I would like to modify File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg, maintaining the basic lines of the design (including the white torse). --Echando una mano (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at the image talk page.Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfred Hitchcock NYWTSm.jpg

File:Alfred Hitchcock NYWTSm.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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! 22:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Yes :-) You failed to write down these things in the RfD. I assumed that this John Naylor were an English photographer whose works had been uploaded on Geography portal and released with a free licence. There was no hint it was the actual uploader. Anyway since you have clarified the point, I'm going to delete the picture. But before doing that: could it be he's some sort of grandson of the actual John Naylor who took the photo? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
PS Or, could it be he is the legitimate owner of the photographs' rights?[reply]

Well, any of the possible reasons why this image is worth keeping could be valid; the problem is that we just don't know. The watermark at the top of the image suggests it's part of a collection, but there are no other clues. I think it's better deleted on the precautionary principle. Sorry if my nomination wasn't so clear, cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion comment

Hi, Thank you for the quick deletion of this non-free image [4]. However, I see that, in the deletion comment, you strangely added the sentence : "can usually be uploaded to your local Wikipedia as fair use if an article exists. That is certainly not the case on most local Wikipedias and actually I don't know of any local Wikipedia that would allow the upload as fair use of this type of non-free image. I think it was important to give you some feedback about it, because the addition of this sentence in deletion comments risks to incite users to upload the images to local projects, and then those images will have to be deleted on those projects, with the unfortunate effects of causing more work for admins there and misunderstanding by users who will wonder why they were given contradictory informations. Regards, -- Asclepias (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I think a free image should be easy to obtain, and I can only imagine that I was thinking of another image when I pressed the button; that's what you get for trying to multi-task! I'll see if I can fix it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Rod. Regarding en:User talk:AVM#Protected edit request on 9 May 2014 (history of User:AVM), is it safe to unprotect the page now, or does the reasoning still stand? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 21:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if an admin on en:WP thinks it's ok to unprotect, I have no objection. It's been four years, so I would expect AVM to have learned what is acceptable on a User page by now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot!--3BRBS (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingsway West retail park, Dundee

Hi there,

I moved your category Category:Kingsway West, Dundee to Category:Kingsway West retail park, Dundee to avoid confusion with the more general Kingsway West area, and for consistency with most other retail park categories.

Not entirely clear whether or not "retail park" is officially part of the development's name itself or just a description, so I kept that in lowercase. Cheers! Laerol (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

River Carron - thanks

Thank you for correcting my mistake in the River Carron pictures: the pictures I recategorised are indeed Easter Ross and I'd forgotten the like-named river on the other side of the county - I must have been having a distracted moment. Hogweard (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, it seems that the corresponding Wikipedia article is also mis-named, but I can't fix it myself. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description tweak

I made a minor tweak to the description of your image File:Graffiti1984.jpg and clarified the "pd-ineligible" disclaimer. If you're unhappy with any of this, please feel free to alter or revert it. Thanks, Yottanesia (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the scope of file renaming criterion 2

Pursuant to the closing of the RFC "Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section", a second RfC has been opened at Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 specifically to address the scope of criterion 2, which currently reads "To change from a completely meaningless name to a name that describes what the image displays." Since you participated in the initial discussion, I am notifying you of the follow-up RfC.

Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Rodhullandemu! I happened to notice your remark on Auntof6’s talk page, to which I wanted to adduce as a counter-example the cats in the Highland branch of the hierarchy, which mostly seem to have the parentheses. But having visited your user page, I now would like to offer to help out—in return for occasional advice. While doing bits of organizing of Scottish topics (mostly heraldry, clans, castles, battles, & such) I‘ve found some aspects of the categorization quite puzzling, and a few times I‘ve backed away from a mess because I wasn’t sure which of several conflicting instances to take for a model, none of them obviously more sensible than the others, for cleaning it up. I also have ongoing projects in cats that are closer to home, but if you have a general to-do list, or schemata to be emulated, I’d poke at it whenever I”m in the mood.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Category:Highland (council area) is one that I haven't touched yet, largely because it represents about a year's work to get it into shape and I am undecided as to how it can be split down for ease of management. Some sort of automation would be desirable, perhaps. For the others, the works I have been doing is set out how to do it is here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I’ll take regions you’ve marked “done“ as a paradigm.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meall a' Chaorainn and so on

Thank you for fixing the mess I made of this category - I was planning to come back make it a disambig page after I realized it could refer to more than one place. (Which is, as I have learned, more often than not the case with Gaelic toponyms, being often transparently descriptive).

Honestly I got confused after looked at Category:Croick again... one is in in Strath Halladale, and the other is less than a mile from the River Alladale which confused me for a second. It wasn't my intention to step on anyone's toes, and I hope I didn't mess anything up. It's clear I'm quite out of my depth, also having not the Gaelic (or any local knowledge for that matter).

Thank you! –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I usually have a look at the files on a map to decide which is which, and use Scottish Places to work out what the subcategory should be. Unfortunately, that site doesn't have entries for all possibilities, but it at least gives an indication of how much disambiguation is needed. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please include at least two parent categories when creating categories.


I came across Category:Round hay bales in the United States and found it and all its child categories detached from the category it sub specifies, e.g. "Category:Round hay bales in the United States" didn't have a related "something something United States" category. In your recent edit history I found Category:Computer scientists from England and found it detached from England as well. Please add at least two parent categories to a new category. There are exceptions to this but those are rare. --Vera (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should address this to whomever created those categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]