User talk:Keith D

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 20:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Keith D!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 08:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Woodsetts Village.jpg was uncategorized on 20 September 2009.
• Image:Middleton Tram.jpg was uncategorized on 27 September 2009.

Hiya, noticed you making editing some of the Devon-related categories and followed it up to see you are working on E Yorkshire. Glad to see another county has someone trying to clear up after the Geograph bombshell :)

In case you weren't already aware you can use Catscan to ID the geograph images needing checking - link for (some of) the ones in the East Riding.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I was trying to sort out the mess that the bots appear to have left us with, I am struggling to find out where some of the categories should go as there appears to be no standard structure and spending too long on hopping around trying to work out what the structure should be. Though I am tending to leave the category check in place at the moment as not quite got the hang of farms and fields which appear to be the same thing in most cases and cover most of the images in the East Riding.

I started going through all of the village categories locating images before the bots hit and am working through alphabetically picking up the images for each one and moving those out of the village that the bot got wrong - at least 90% are wrong! Some of the East Riding images have been put in France and some in Australia so looks like it is going to be a long job. As I got to H before disaster struck I will have to return to do A-H again. Keith D (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the bot is pretty awful at locations (I found Devon images in the Luton and Bradford for example). And I don't have a clue either as to when to use Countryside, Fields or Farms - tho I'm removing the check tag just so I can ID which I haven't looked at yet. My inclination on those is "fields" for shots strictly of fields, "farms" for farmland images that include more than just the fields (such as a building) and "countryside" when there is other stuff like woodland in the image. The moaning at Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph should "amuse" you!

One thing I've been doing in Devon is making use of the civil parishes. That allows me to nest the location cats into a logical hierarchy like in Category:Teignbridge and I've been putting rural files into the CP cat rather than the nearest village category (as that's slightly easier to ID). Obviously the East Riding doesn't have districts in the same way but you could use Category:Civil Parishes in the East Riding of Yorkshire. In any case, good luck with clearing up the mess up there (hopefully they won't do the other batch uploads anytime soon) :)--Nilfanion (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. The bot created the civil parishes in the same category as the villages so I have left them and adding the places to the entries that are just civil parishes. I will probably nest other locations under entries which are villages and civil parishes at some point. I am trying to allocate all images to a place and avoid any in the civil parish only entry if I can. The only district type area is Kingston upon Hull which I am leaving until last as there are far too many images to sort out there, though several will be extracted and placed into the East Riding locations surrounding it.

I am glad they have stalled on uploading at the moment so I can get some sanity from what is there. I am uploading some images for places with few images to pre-empt the bot loading them somewhere I cannot find them. The descriptions on some of the images is not very helpful so I am adding the location & county at the same time so should be able to do a search in all the East Riding images. Keith D (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith thanks for helping out with the Dormanstown page, could you tell me how to attribute peoples images. I seen that you did it with one of the images I uploaded.

The one I changed was from the Geograph project and there is a template {{Geograph}} for that, which gives the licence and the attribution. If you are uploading Geograph images you can get the information by clicking on the "Find out how to reuse this Image" link under the image on the Geograph site. Scroll down to the section headed "Wikipedia Template for image page.", copy the info from the box below it and then paste it into the image upload form. Job done saves lots of typing. Keith D (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

Renaming file on local projects BEFORE the effective rename isn't a best practice, especially as there is a bot, CommonsDelinker, which handle this kind of operations.

There is also a need renaming a file to fix factual errors, to keep all file information in the name, so I renamed to Close to Assembly - geograph.org.uk - 202932.jpg. --Dereckson (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'm curious as to how you go about determining the correct location when handling imagery? Obviously this is primarily with Geograph uploads in mind, but also matters to other stuff too. Personally I like to get everything to the correct civil parish (or better), which is extremely tedious at times. Reason for this is if I don't recognise the subject I end up having to check against the 1:25,000 scale OS maps.

I've had a couple thoughts that might be extremely helpful, but I'd like to see how someone else is doing the job first.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going for the place rather than the Civil Parish, I intend to put the places in to the civil parishes at some point, I have done this for Civil Parishes that are not villages so far. I do the location by looking at the streetmap site for the location as that site has the maps that show the Civil Parish boundaries and compare the map shown on Geograph to see where it should go. Though I have found that many of the Geograph images do not have specific co-ords and you get a general co-ordinate of the grid square so you have to judge it by what is shown and the description given. It is useful that one individual has given the exact OS reference in the description for some of those images that are square orientated. If I cannot get any closer I usually add all possible location categories. Keith D (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to get the Geograph image corrected when you find a problem and I have input several changes there and reflected the change back here on Commons. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a basically similar process to me. The checking against Streetmap and Geograph.

I personally prefer to go for parish first as that saves me making judgement calls about if its of the hamlet or merely of surrounding countryside. My long term aim is to ensure the hamlet categories contain images of the hamlet only, and to make CP a distinct category from its namesake village (so you can get to the pics of the village without needing to hunt through the countryside). That said the top-down/bottom-up approaches of our two work models both get to the same place in the end and both work.

Real reason for the message is I've had an idea that makes the CP check a lot simpler. The MaPit service listed on the geohack page makes use of the OS boundary data. For example, see this output for File:Small Rail Crossing - geograph.org.uk - 113074.jpg. Its not perfect, as the Commons template uses camera location and subject location is what matters for categories, but the quick check on Geograph verifies without the need to mess around on Streetmap most of the time. (It also provides potential for a bot that actually works effectively - but one thing at a time!)

If {{Check categories-Geograph}} is modified to directly link to that, we could do the CP checking in one link. As it also includes the electoral wards, it could also be used as a natural way to sub-divide the cities. Does that sound like it would be helpful?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to get a civil parish name as it is a pain moving the streetmap image around to get the name which is not always easy. Though the decimal figures for co-ordianates on the template may not be the location for the image but just a conversion of the OS grid square which is not accurate enough when near the boundaries of parishes. Keith D (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree there: There's too many things that could go wrong for anything to be entirely trusted. I think it can save time in majority of cases - if the location looks right on Geograph for one. (The coordinates in the template essentially match the location on Geograph). I'll have a play around tomorrow and see how much time and effort it saves per image.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen this discussion, but Ordnance Survey Election Maps is really easy for determining the civil parish (you need to turn on the civil parish layer!), and saves rooting out the 1:25,000 paper maps! Skinsmoke (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is civil parish as an option? Keith D (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click the "Show layers" tag above the "Overview map". Parish is the third one down (blue dots). It isn't 100 per cent accurate for new parishes or parish boundary changes, as these sometimes take a few weeks (months in the case of Darwen!) to filter through. However, it is the best and most up to date available (I picked up the creation of Beckermet in Cumbria from it today, and the parish only came into existence in April 2011!). Skinsmoke (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does look potentially useful. Another approach I'm drawn to is that provided by http://mapit.mysociety.org - as that allows lookup of lat/long coordinates to identify the containing area - for example [1]. That tool is included in the Geohack list, and could be added to {{Check categories-Geograph}}. That would make checking location a matter of one click per image. Much more importantly to me, it would enable coding of a bot that actually gets it right most of the time! (That is if we can find a competent, helpful bot-op)--Nilfanion (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded File:Anlaby with Anlaby Common UK parish locator map.svg, there's instructions at here, making locator maps for the other parishes should be straightforward.

In terms of using the blank map in the list, that's doable. It would need location map coding if you wanted to use it to replace the background of the existing map and keeping the labels, might want to ask on en for advice. As for adding numbers, again that's doable. The problem is the sheer number of parishes (171!) and the small sizes of some, will make label placement extremely complex especially if its going to be legible at lower resolutions.

I could also prep a blank map of Hull, showing the current wards, which won't be hard at all. Incidentally, that is likely to be much more practical to convert to a labelled version.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem there is straightforward enough, you downloaded the thumbnail :) If you right click on the image on the file page then click "save image as" in FF, you are downloading the PNG thumbnail. You need to use "save link as" instead, you will then download the Original SVG. Firefox should be able render SVGs directly (my version can), so left-clicking on the second link should take you to the image?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the file to correct the minor error there. All looks fine, except the sourcing - it doesn't mention me! :) Its probably worth just using the source/author layout of File:Location map of Drake (ward) within Plymouth.svg - the source of the map you made is the blank, not the OS data itself. I went directly back to source as its silly to source it a derivative I've made of my own work to myself, better to go back to my source...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for heads up on the Asselby error (the cause is a typo on my part, given I manually typed 20,000 or so place names I expect there to be a few mistakes). I'll fix it in the blank map shortly. The id tags make no difference to rendering the file, their only purpose is to assist humans - if the paths were labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 etc you'd never find the right one to make derivative maps. Glad to see you making use of the file too :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for notice, I'll wait until you finish before updating the blank again (to save fix all of them in on go). Don't envy you the chore either, there's the reason I haven't done the bulk upload myself. One thing I did notice with the ones you have uploaded is File:Edenham Grimsthorpe Elsthorpe & Scottlethorpe UK parish locator map.svg, specifically the hideous name of the parish. Shouldn't it at least have some commas? :) For what its worth, OS and ONS both have it as plain Edenham anyway.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess my point about the name is a concern for WP, I think it should be at "w:Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" unless there is a clear preference for the no-comma form (which is not valid grammatically) - the long/short version isn't as important.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice you've reuploaded those locators - I assume you've checked all the names and is just the three (Asselby, Foston and Ottringham) that need corrections? Btw, in case you haven't noticed my bot is putting basic location cats on the recent Geograph uploads. It won't be perfect (eg when the Geograph user made a mistake), but if it does move a file to a location category that category will be correct, unlike the earlier bot categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will reupload the base map shortly too with those fixes. As for Geograph, yeah its a "start". There is just too way much stuff for manual sorting to ever really be functional: 3,888 files of Cambridge for instance, yuck! That said, getting a good location to begin with helps, as in my experience verifying the location is the time consuming bit - once that is done tools such as Cat-a-Lot can be utilised to save a bunch of time.

And IMO, Category:Towns, villages and civil parishes in Selby district isn't ideal as it combines the concepts of "settlements" and "administrative areas", when they should be split; ultimately I'd like to separate the CP from its namesake village and have two different categories for the village and the CP.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It downloads/uploads fine for me (see File:Strensall with Towthorpe UK parish locator map.svg). Not sure why you have problems, either the file got corrupted on download somehow or you downloaded the wrong thing (the original is 4.30MB). Best to try again and see?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the issue is then, as I can re-upload I assume the copy on Commons is OK. The N Yorks map is a much larger file than the E Yorks one, so it is more likely to cause issues, but I don't have a clue what that is. Does the svg "look" ok when you are editing it? Might be worth asking the help desk or similar.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the interwiki links which I hadn't thought of, and will fix that later on.

As to the case where a civil parish only contains one village - I found it increasingly confusing to be looking for village images amongst (large) numbers of pictures of fields and trees and drains - which is why I started splitting. An alternative would be to have a sub category "XXX (village)" within XXX

Looks like you've gone and reverted every single fucking edit I made, thanks for undoing all that work - I don;t know why I fucking bother - can we meet in person because you seriously need a fucking kicking you fucking arsehole.

Go and fuck yourself.Imgaril (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil - and I was not the only person who has been reverting out the changes that you have made. Keith D (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did it..... [2] Bruno-ban (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diff KuH isn't technically in the East Riding of Yorkshire...Imgaril (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it is not but it is the way that all the categories are built up we use the Ceremonial Counties and Hull is in the ceremonial county of the East Riding of Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticed the frustrated complaint at the batch upload page. I don't any real bot-writing skills, but certainly can point to databases. The link that's been added to {{Check categories-Geograph}} ("You can also have a look at this tool from mysociety) provides a direct link to a lookup of the OS datasets, which makes the civil parish check a one click job.

You might want to check out what I've done with my bot's javascript: Its basically a hacked Cat-a-Lot, which takes the grid ref, applies a location cat and drop the grid ref call in the template (as unecessary). Its a primitive localisation solution, but means I can get through several hundred images in an hour and apply a correct location. More detailed categorisation takes a bit longer, but my experience is the localisation is the hard bit.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I am working slowly through locations doing everything at once rather than just adding a single cat at a time. I am fixing up red-links, adding location detail to the description and adding the cats (though this may need moving to a sub-cat at some point). I am even fixing the errors on the original Geograph image information which would otherwise not be picked up. Keith D (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, two different approaches :)

I haven't even bothered with sorting out the descriptions at this time, just getting the cats sorted takes forever and a day. I'm adding more to my list of cats to add each time too - my list for Plymouth files is getting quite long now example, and I haven't begun to sub-categorise the buildings category yet(!) The one thing I do do is get the pages off the bot radar ASAP--Nilfanion (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith,

today I noticed two edits you made: this and that. Could please you explain, why you added the English word "From" to the otherwise language neutral (bare URL) source links, and why you put <br /> line breaks back into the (rather short) descriptions? Both are redundant and/or counterproductive from my point of view. It would be helpful to understand your rationale, I guess.

Please note that I'm not asking about the "Permission (Reusing this file)" line. The ideal placement of licensing tags has already been discussed at great length, and there's no clear majority opinion yet. It's also irritating that some upload bots place these tags directly within the information template, and others place them apart/below. Generally I prefer the first variant, though, but I tend to respect individual photographers' preferences (at least as far as I'm aware of), and I only change the tag placement on occasion when I change other parts of file descriptions (I won't make extra edits just to rearrange license tags). So there's no hassle about this part of your edits here :-)

Regards --:bdk: 18:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the way they come across from the Geograph project with and I am trying to keep them all in the same format. It makes checking for updates easier if you can compare the basic info in image and the Geograph base info. Keith D (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Forgot - having headings allows you to edit the page directly from the various other wiki's that use the image as an [Edit] link is supplied. Saves opening up the image in Commons first to edit the details. Keith D (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned buildings in the East Riding of Yorkshire has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Imgaril (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stpetersschoolsnow.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, you asked Gustavo to make the Hull City kits, but I made them instead. If there's anything else you need, you can ask me. Spiraal (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I ask Gustavo as he did last years. Keith D (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something a bit special happened last month: you probably took part in a photographic world record! Last year’s Wiki Loves Monuments competition set a world record, and the early numbers from this year look even better. We received 370,000 images from 12,000 people across 53 countries. This was the first year that the UK has taken part in the contest, and we are overjoyed to have received no fewer than 11,995 entries from 573 contributors.

Wiki Loves Monuments in the UK was organised by volunteers with backing from Wikimedia UK, the local charity that supports Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects in helping to share educational materials, such as your photos, and making them available to all.

If you want to get more involved, Wikimedia UK is offering free training on how to edit Wikipedia, and workshops on honing your photographic skills. You've made that first step, why not take the next?

You can register your interest here.

Wikimedia UK relies entirely on donations and receives no government funding. If you would like to support the charity in its mission, please consider donating now. Membership costs £5 and ensures you keep up to date with activities both around the country and online.

You can contribute here.

Speaking for myself, it has been great fun to go out taking pictures and learn about local history, and I hope you enjoyed yourself too. For now, it’s over to the judges. We’ll be announcing the winners in early November.

On behalf of the organisers and volunteers who made Wiki Loves Monuments UK happen, thank you!

--Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Your email is not enabled at the moment. If you want to be eligible to receive a prize for your work, you need to have email enabled. Go to "my preferences" to do so.

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ 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 Keith D, 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

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 Keith D, 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

I assume this edit was a mistake, with which you removed the Geograph copyright template and copyright tag from the image I found in Category:Media without a license: needs history check today. The tag you removed provided the correct Creative Commons licence instead of your text, which is not adequate. Please be more careful when editing such image details because it could well have been deleted for lack of a licence except that I reviewed the history and found the problem. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one. Please preview the edit for errors such as this and be more careful in future. I fixed it. Ww2censor (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this graph I wonder if you still have the image saved on your computer? It needs a correction. Due to my own woeful inability to pick up the error, for more than a year the article stated 7.034 million to be the viewing figure for series one episode one when it actual fact the correct figure was 7.304 million. As such the graph isn't accurate. Eshlare (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I have still got the file. I have updated it and tried to upload it a few times. Sometimes it shows the original file and sometimes the corrected version - not sure what is going on may be some caching issue. Clicking on the image in the article page gives the correct image but even with a null edit I cannot get the article image to change. Keith D (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you stating "there is no Kingston upon Hull district", there is a district called Kingston upon Hull, its just that it also covers Kingston upon Hull and is around about the same area which is probably why there is no separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to exist only as a parish council, the civil parish appears to still be just Edenham (per OS maps). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...It is not a parish council. Please do not refer to any area of land under any circumstance as a council.

In this case, the parish marked as "Edenham CP" on OS maps is "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" to Lincolnshire County Council. OS is NOT the ultimate authority on the name of a unit, when there is disagreement something unusual may be going on.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add to above - there are not two distinct entities, there is just one. For whatever reason, it has two names in use. When choosing the correct name, we should not use the official name, but the common name. What that is in this case is a valid question, but in the first instance I would defer to Wikipedia.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that a few civil parishes have been renamed against the common name in recent months in the East Riding of Yorkshire which I may at some point reverse to those used by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council which is what I set them up as originally. Keith D (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nilfanion, I already know that the parish council is who runs it, not the area of land, this however is not a grouped parish council, as all the other places aren't civil parishes in their own right. Lincolnshire County Council uses "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" because that's the name of the governing body. Do you have any sources to show that "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" is a civil parish because the sources in the Wikipedia article indicate that the parish council is called Edenham while the council is Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe, see the first and 2nd refs. I think it may be OK to have 2 Wikipedia articles but the map of the civil parish should be renamed otherwise it implies that that is what the civil parish is called. We probably don't need a Commons cat for the council as well as it appears to cover the same area as the civil parish. Keith D what ones were these? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An example would be the unnecessary change to Category:Shipton Thorpe. Keith D (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to merging it back but note that this was a split not a move, the cat for the village still exists at Shiptonthorpe (which is the PC name) while the civil parish has Shipton Thorpe (which has images outside the village). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC) But the map which shows the civil parish should be titled with the civil parish name not the village or PC name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name on the map (Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe) is a name of the civil parish. It is not named for the village (clearly) or the Parish Council, but for the civil parish itself. There are at least two names in use, both apparently valid.

The same would apply with Shipton Thorpe/Shiptonthorpe - they are two names for the same thing, and that is an unacceptable forking of content. If village and parish were to have separate categories, then the parish should have a (parish) disambiguator.

In both cases, we need to pick one name and use it.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That website shows that the parish council has that name, as I pointed out before the first ref on the Wikipedia article has population data for the name "Edenham".

As I said I don't think I would object to that at the moment but in any case the files need to be the correct name of the civil parish even if we use the name of the village or the parish council.

I agree as variants of the name could cause confusion as having 1 word (Shiptonthorpe) isn't much different to 2 words (Shipton Thorpe) In this case if the cats were to stay split then we probably should have "Shiptonthorpe" (the village) as the village in any case should be at the main title and "Shipton Thorpe (parish) (the civil parish) (or Shipton Thorpe (civil parish) to distinguish from the parish council). I would suggest that the name of the settlement on the OS or the official name should be used first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That website clearly states that "Welcome to the Parish of Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe, before going on to describe the parish - so it is using that as the parish's name. Therefore the parish has two names in use. Which we should use is an open question, but both are possibilities.

When there is the choice of multiple names, we use the COMMON name not the official one. They are often, but not always, the same.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid having two categories, one for the civil parish and one for the settlement, as that is confusing and there will be cases where images could fit both categories. Better to have a single category that covers both as is what has been happening for several cases where they have been merged. Keith D (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the website also states "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe & Scottlethorpe Parish Council consists of seven members...". Do you have any sources that the civil parish is also that, as stated before a parish council can run more than 1 civil parish, see w:Hopton, Suffolk for example. Again as stated I don't think at the moment I would have a problem with them being merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am growing concerned about your failure to acknowledge what the source says. It clearly indicates that the parish council considers "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" to be the name (or at least a name) of the parish. If you are unable/unwilling to accept that sort of fact - you will be adding a Commons ban to your Wikipedia ban.

It should be clear that both "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" and "Edenham" are acceptable names. Which to use? I'm not totally sure, but why should Commons differ from Wikipedia? In the absence of a pressing reason, Commons should just use the same thing as Wikipedia.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a fact that I am unable/unwilling to accept, what I am saying is that the CP and PC appear to have different names. I have not simply refused to accept that. As I have found in other cases the CP and PC name do sometimes vary. The website clearly implies the PC name. In this case we might agree to use the PC name which as you point out is in some way "official".

Yes in a way but it could still cause confusion. Are you suggesting that we keep both cats and have "Edenham" just for the settlement and "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" for the CP and PC? This discussion was mainly about the file rather than the cat so even if we keep both cats, we should still use the CP name for the file. Yes we should probably often use Wikipedia but if we find an error or something that is out consistency then we should consider not following, anyway we are having a discussion about it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for the file name to be different from the category name. Keith D (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the webpage with the welcome message, the parish council clearly refers to the parish as "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" - not "welcome to the council", "welcome to the parish". It is not the Civil Parish has one name, and the Parish Council has another - to the Parish Council they have the SAME NAME. Other sources use other names for the parish (and the council). As I have said several times above, this is a case where the parish has multiple names in use. We have to select one of those names, but they are BOTH names of the civil parish.

With regards to the file, I agree with Keith that the filename should match the category name. The category name should match the WP article name. If the WP article name is in error, then all 3 should be corrected.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further opinion on the file name or the CAT name then. If the common name is "Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe" then that could be used for the cat. The file should probably still state the official name (used on the OS, census data ect) though. In that case are we going to use "Edenham" just for the settlement then? Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged Shipton Thorpe. I still think we should keep Cottingwith though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In future, please do not rename or split any civil parish categories - it should be obvious the same sort of problem is occurring again and again in different locations. Instead, just make a note of the affected parish(es) and move on. This will enable one discussion to take place centrally for the whole of England, and not scattered to the four winds over various talk pages. However as Commons categories should normally match WP articles, if you want to rename a category here to match the WP article go ahead.

One particular issue for you is that you are blocked on WP. You are unable to fix links to Commons from there, and carry out any edits there when the WP article is clearly wrong. Those links from WP are also why village and parish should not normally be split (the articles are about both, and links to Commons should also be to a category that contains both concepts).

Please don't reply further here - I expect Keith would like some peace and quiet! :)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a district of the East Riding of Yorkshire, also called East Riding of Yorkshire, see Category:East Riding of Yorkshire (district). The ceremonial county also contains Kingston upon Hull. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a unitary authority of the East Riding of Yorkshire there is no district. District is invented here as a disambiguator. 11:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A UA is a sub category of a district, see w:Category:Unitary authority districts of England. District is the last specific term used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Commons invention it is not in the real world. May be that category should be renamed as just Unitary authorities. Keith D (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons invention? they are treated as districts on WP (and that CAT was created long before), if you think that the CATs should be renamed, feel free to start a CFD. I used "(district)" as its the least specific term and w:WP:UKDISTRICTS#Naming conventions doesn't cover UAs that have the same name as ceremonial counties but different boundaries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You're receiving this message because you've previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in the UK. We'd be delighted if you would do so again this year and help record our local built environment for future generations.

You can find more details at the Wiki Loves Monuments UK website. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Many thanks for your help once more! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thank you so much for contributing to the UK section of this year's Wiki Loves Monuments contest, which finished yesterday. We really do appreciate the time and effort you've put in to record the UK's built cultural heritage for future generations.

Your contribution has been been added to our collections here on Wikimedia Commons, and is already available for editors to make use of on Wikipedia and elsewhere. It has also been entered into this year's contest. If you'd like to see your own images, just click on the uploads link at the top right of this page (if you don't see it, click on the Log in option first).

We've received over 10,000 UK entries this year, and it will take a few weeks for our volunteers and professional judges to decide on the final top 10. The winners will be announced by the end of this month, both here on Wikimedia Commons and also on the competition website.

The top 10 UK images will go forward to the international section where they will compete against winners from some 50 other countries. The international winners should be announced here in December.

Don't forget, by the way, that if you're hoping to win a prize in the contest it's essential that you have enabled email in your Wikimedia preferences. If you haven't, you're not eligible to win. If you're unsure, please check here.

Once again, many thanks for your help! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 

العربية | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | English | español | فارسی | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | magyar | македонски | 日本語 | Nederlands | português do Brasil | română | سنڌي | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | +/−

---

Dear Keith D,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, 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 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 12:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 

العربية | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | English | español | فارسی | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | magyar | македонски | 日本語 | Nederlands | português do Brasil | română | سنڌي | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | +/−

---

Dear Keith D,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, 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 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keith D,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 200K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world.

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). 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, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2020.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team, 08:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't you think that Category:Sports_in_Leeds such move should be discussed before doing anything, since its impact on subcategories? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The category covers places like Wetherby which is City of Leeds rather than the settlement so I thought that it was appropriate. Keith D (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And couldn't simply Sports in Leeds be a subcategory of Sports in the City of Leeds"? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, though would need to work out which was Leeds and which were moved up to City of Leeds. Keith D (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's worth the effort. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have removed the redirect from "Sports in Leeds" and will move up appropriate images from there to "Sports in the City of Leeds" Keith D (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notice at Withernsea Millennium Green (geograph 3736384).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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 10:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:HiggyvHearts.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!

 

Missvain (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HiggyvHearts.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:HiggyvHearts.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Missvain (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:AcunIlıcalı02.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Nanahuatl (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Church, Kingston upon Hull has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Hullian111 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you kindly delete the first upload from the above file, which is here? I had uploaded an image of the wrong man, initially. The second upload I believe to be correct. Thankyou. Storye book (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have deleted. Keith D (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]