User talk:Jmabel: Difference between revisions

/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 9

Re Malin. This person is a chronic uploader of junk. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Uploads by Matlin/temp. He does not have a user page on the Commons and I don't know how to "communicate" with him in Polish. He has been blocked a couple of times for this, but my recent nominations from December 14 show that since his recent block expired nothing has changed. These are a tiny, tiny portion of his junky uploads, since the Commons as a high tolerance for junk. As someone said regarding his junk: "Drinking from the Flickr firehose gives us a lot of COM:FREE content, but I'm not seeing COM:SCOPE". If you go through the "uncategorized" dates, those that still have thousands remaining without categories contain large numbers of Matlin's uploads (as well a those of some other uploaders with the same tendencies). It's quite depressing and I'm sick of it and getting sick of junk. I just like looking at photographs of different places. (I hear it is cold in Seattle.) Krok6kola (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You suggested that I speak to User:Matlin. (A.Savin blocked them for one month on January 5, 2022.) How do you speak to some in Polish? I've managed to add some images to articles in the Polish Wikipedia but that is about it. Matlin can only be contacted through email, according to his Polish page. Krok6kola (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Krok6kola: If there is no common language, then my best suggestion is Google Translate (then copy-paste). Mention, of course, that you are using machine translation. I'd send email with both the English and the machine translation. pl:Wikiskryba:Matlin does say he knows "basic" English and (if it's useful to you) a bit more German. - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think he/she (probably a he) is addicted, as we all are here. The sad part is just before he was blocked he/she was starting to actually add some categories. I don't think language is the way to go with this person. Krok6kola (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The photographs did rise and fall together, as you predicted! Krok6kola (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year! As always at the beginning of the new year, I'm inviting you to share your most memorable shot of the past year. Which of your photos stood out in 2021? Which image created special memories that you'd like to share with others? On behalf of the Commons Photographers User Group I wish you, your family, and your friends all the best for 2022. Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmabel. You had helped me a while back (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carrie-Hope-Fletcher.jpg#File%3ACarrie-Hope-Fletcher.jpg) and I wasn't sure where to ask this question, so I hope you don't mind me asking you. I've developed a general interest in intellectual property the last couple years, and I recently took some coursework on copyright. I'm the odd sort of person who finds copyright a bit fun, I suppose, and I was wondering to what extent there is a need for people semi-knowledgeable in that area on this site. Assuming so, do you have any recommendations on how to get started, both in learning my way around and in terms of what needs doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueNeutral879 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

• @TrueNeutral879: I would suggest you start checking in regularly at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. That's the central point for copyright-related discussion. (Also, please sign your posts). - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the pointers! I'll take a look. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I thought New York Water Taxi was technically considered a ferry. ----DanTD (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @DanTD: If it is, then feel free to add that. (I wouldn't call a tour boat a ferry, but whatever.) But certainly don't remove the category that indicates that it shows a ferry (rather than an empty terminal). Certainly what the picture shows is more important than what sort of boat I was on when I took it, and shouldn't be dropped. - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...wouldn't that have been a really cool topic for a geek? ;-) Pittigrilli (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Record producers 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 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thornewood - formal garden detail 01.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） ∙ +/−

75.146.52.142 18:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thornewood 04.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） ∙ +/−

75.146.52.142 18:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thornewood 05.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） ∙ +/−

75.146.52.142 18:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1940s architecture in New York 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 ∙ +/−

--R'n'B (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R'n'B and R'n'B: the discussion link leads nowhere. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are too fast. ;-) It's live now. --R'n'B (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I Have the same problem again; link János Piry Cirjék (Q1236709) wikidata to János Piry Cirjék commons. I don't know where I go wrong. I have asked "Wikidata:Project chat" about it.

Regards

--Io Herodotus (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Io Herodotus: again, that Wikidata item is not linked to Commons. Did you look at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2966518&diff=1594620512&oldid=1504990041, which I linked in our discussion on the Village pump? You need to make an analogous edit to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1236709. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, it has to be added on 2 different places. Thank you. --Io Herodotus (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Very Helpful Award
	Appreciate it :) FlantasyFlan (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: "new" search for a given item is

http://archives.seattle.gov/digital-collections/index.php/Search/objects/search/num%253Aitem numberAND+ca_objects.type_id%253A23

e.g. http://archives.seattle.gov/digital-collections/index.php/Search/objects/search/num%253A77810+AND+ca_objects.type_id%253A23

Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I create this category. Please re-categorising to subcategories by country. --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jmabel! Since you had mentioned that you were open to reconsideration, I wanted to bring your attention to my comment. Regards. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

Please save the date: on Saturday, June 19th, our next virtual Zoom meeting is going to take place. As you know, one goal of these meetings is to share knowledge about different types of photography. This time, we've lined up the following presentations:

• Photography in Nigeria
• Photographing vehicles
• I started printing my images – here’s what I've learned so far…

If you'd like to participate in this event, please consider signing up on this page. Also, if you'd like to present at one of the next meetings, please send me a quick note. Sharing your experiences and learnings with others can make a huge difference!

I wish you, your family, and your friends all the best! Hope to see you on the 19th.

Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to talk to you about the modification of the template Template:PD-VenezuelaGov that mentions the public domain license for Venezuela.

Recently in 2012, the government decreed a law that releases to the public domain all the graphic material that is made by any of the government institutions.

The law in question is the Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law in English), decreed in May 7, 2012. In which article no. 325 decrees (in Spanish):

La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.

Translated into English would be:

The intellectual production generated under an employment relationship in the public sector, or financed through public funds that originates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, maintaining the rights to public recognition of the author.

Can be modify this template to add this law?

-- Wguayana (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wguayana: I have no problem with that happening; the template already pretty crowded, though, and rewording it to add this major case may be complicated.
• Also, I think that very literal translation is a bit clumsy. Still, I guess we need to stay more-or-less literal, rather than just explain the concept. What about a slight rewording to:

Intellectual product generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition.

• Do you want to edit the template, or are you asking me to edit it? Have you pinged the people who have worked on that template in the past? Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jmabel Very good, it seems fair to me.

  I am asking you to edit it as it can only be changed by administrators. I contacted other administrators but so far no one had replied. Wguayana (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Wguayana: I've updated the English and the Spanish; I don't have the confidence to do the German. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks!

    -- Wguayana (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. @VGrigas (WMF): I don't think this is more for admins to decide than anyone else. Issue should be brought to the Village Pump.
2. I'm going to make a strong guess that you'll need the explicit permission of each individual who has submitted the sound logo before you do this with their submission. Otherwise, you are violating their license. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just a quick reminder: the next virtual meeting of our user group is scheduled for Sunday, June 19, 16:00 UTC. Topics are: “Photography in Nigeria”, “Photographing Vehicles”, “Wildlife photography and citizen science”, and “I started printing my images – here’s what I've learned so far…”. I'm thrilled about this great agenda and I'm looking forward to connecting with you again. Stay safe and all the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Solstice Parade and Pageant 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 ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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! 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Fremont, Seattle - dinosaur topiary.jpg

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jmabel, One of your photos has been used in the book The Library, A Fragile History (with due acknowledgements), see The Signpost. --- Vysotsky (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

I hope you're well and enjoy taking photos for Wikimedia Commons. Here are a couple of quick updates on behalf of our group:

• Our next virtual meeting will take place on Saturday, August 27. At this point we have two presentations lined up:

• Suitable! Unsuitable! How to choose photos for a Wikipedia for children, “Klexikon” (Ziko)
• The aperture and its (less known) effects (XRay)

You can sign up for the event on this page: Virtual Meeting on August 27, 2022. – Given that we can accommodate more speakers, I'll invite you to get in touch with me in case you'd like to present on the 27th. You can reach me any time on my talk page or by sending a quick email.

• Also, we now have a page for local events organized by members of our user group: Local events 2022. Please check it out and consider organizing an event yourself!
• And finally, we're planning on offering a Post-processing Workshop on October 8. Please save the date; an events page with more information will go up later.

Thanks for being a member of our group and for sharing your works under a free license. Have fun taking pictures!

All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it is not necessary to answer to out of scope posts by newbies on Helpdesk. I deleted or reverted all edits by this user, and warned them about the scope of Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: That's fine. Since she was claiming to be an actress, I thought there might be a photo of her that was somehow involved. - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You should a {{User admin}} in your userpage. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yann: Thanks, done. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to know that the account that uploaded this copyvio image is a sockpuppet on English Wikipedia. Bri (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

At our last meeting end of August, we talked about getting in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation and offering our help for improving Wikimedia Commons. Today, I invite you to provide your input on a draft open letter to the Foundation. Over the course of the next ten days, we'll further improve the text together, before inviting people to sign it. If you're interested in providing input, please engage in the discussion on the talk page of the draft.

In the meanwhile, I hope you're well and have a great time taking photos! All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

en:User talk:Jmabel The Leon Lynch image uploaded simply needs editing in the copyright data and photo caption. According to the United Steelworkers representative, the copyright belongs to: United Steelworkers archive. There should not be an individual photographer listed. Also, the Steelworkers state the image was taken circa 1990 not 1996. Any credit for the image should be courtesy of the United Steelworkers archive.

Not sure what happened to the copy of the image that Tony Montana of the USW said he uploaded. I never saw it in the Wikimedia Commons database. Just glad the source details behind the image I shared, which is the same image Tony said he shared, will be corrected. Thank you. [unsigned]

1. @STTLynch: You can edit it accordingly exactly as easily as I can.
2. As far as I can see, we still don't have a clear permission for the image from the copyright holder. I don't have access to VRT tickets. As I said, if you believe there is already a ticket on this, bring that matter to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. If there is no ticket, then the copyright holder needs to go through the process described at COM:VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 14:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Commons Photographers User Group member,

This coming Saturday, October 8, we'll host an online post processing workshop. On behalf of our events coordinator Shreya I invite you to sign up for the event using this Google form.

I hope you're well. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted Special:Diff/698124563 and Special:Diff/698124336. I wonder if it might be worth hiding the edit summaries as purely disruptive material, since they're in no way germane to the edits and the second one is at least a little bit transphobic. --bjh21 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bjh21: Good idea, but it looks like someone beat me to it. - Jmabel ! talk 14:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I'm concerned that this image at commons is child pornography. Not only because the minor's glute is very visible, but the Flickr account from which the image was uploaded - and that I will not make a link to (it can be accessed from the photo's description) - is filled with nude photos of minors and inappropriate comments below the images. Governor Sheng (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking file page: File:The twins laugh at something they are watching at our campsite (50094290861).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 14:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Governor Sheng: you appear to have nominated this for deletion. I have no idea why you have messaged me on my talk page. If you feel this is an admin issue, please bring it to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, I don't think the image is pornographic, and I'm neutral about whether it should be kept on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 14:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing to my attention that my bot (BadzilBot was doing unnecessary edits. As mentioned on the Commons pump this wasn't intended and will not continue in the future. It would have been nice to have been made aware directly of this issue with a message on my talk page or a ping on the Commons pump thread. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cryptic-waveform: Sorry. Glad to hear this wasn't intentional. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user group member,

I'm writing you to today on behalf of the board of the Commons Photographers User Group. The past year has been a busy one for us. In 2022, we've had more activities than ever before in the history of our group and you'll find an overview on our group's page.

With that being said, 2022 was also a year of learning for the current board members. Most of us hadn't been involved in running the Photographers User Group and we spent quite some time on getting used to our new roles. We all feel it was a steep learning curve.

That's why, at our last board meeting, we decided to ask our members whether they'd be ok with us serving for another year. Extending our board duties to the end of 2023 would allow us to continue the work we've started this year, and to benefit from the knowledge we've built over the past twelve months.

However, in the end, it's up to you and the other members of our group to decide whether such an extension of our board term should be granted. I invite you to voice your opinion on this page:

Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections 2022

We'll gather feedback until December 27, and we'll keep you in the loop about the outcomes of this process.

Thanks so much for your ongoing support of our group. I wish you, your family, and your friends all the best.

--Ailura (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

…about this. I should have been more useful in this discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted.

As you can imagine, it did not help me in keeping track of the issues at hand. Neither of you was pointing to a technical issue, you were both arguing vexillology and throwing insults at each other. I figured I was keeping matters on track by trying to bring it back to the vexillology. But as an admin, I probably should have been thinking ahead to the tech side of what the move would mean. If I've screwed up, then I've screwed up, and there is nothing in particular I can do about it now. - Jmabel ! talk 04:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what’s worth, I think you’re by far hands down one of the very best admins in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I try. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Tuvalkin. "I think you’re by far hands down one of the very best admins in Commons." You are. Krok6kola (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you love to do infoboxes, Category:Reginald Barlow needs one too. Krok6kola (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't "love" to do them, but I do seem to be one of the people on Commons who gets how to do Wikidata. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's another then: Category:Billy Campbell (baseball). I would do them if I knew how and understood the point of doing them. Krok6kola (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The big pieces are

    1. Add the Commons page to the relevant Wikidata item.
    2. Flesh out the Wikidata item, if needed.
    3. Add {{Wikidata Infobox}} to the Commons page.

    Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

I wish you a Happy New Year! As it has been our tradition at the beginning of the new year for a while, we're sharing our most memorable shots of the past year with each other. I invite you to share a picture that is particular meaningful to you and to describe why that's the case. Also, as Wikimania 2023 will be here before we know it (August 16 to 19), please consider adding your thoughts on our planning page, where we gather ideas for how we can make Commons photography more visible than in the years before.

All the best to you, your family, and friends! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Sapiens et iustus es. 188.123.231.39 06:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, This photo File:Cement plant 02.jpg with credit to you appeared today on All In with Chris Hayes in reference to a Supreme Court case and hearing, which I think was also today. -- Ooligan (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: Thanks for letting me know! - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Congratulations, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better to create CFDs for each empty category like Trivialist did at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/01#Category:SCOOB!_characters or focus on reverting the edits first so that the discussions aren't pointless? Both options are terrible because I can at best half-heartedly say they should be deleted but I feel foolish saying "someone else gutted this and it's now empty but believe me, if we had what I think we had here, it would be a bad category." Maybe I can get a bot to make a list of what pages were in those categories first and then post that so the discussions aren't basically rigged from the start. It's a lot of work to have an honest debate even if I think they are all ridiculous. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ricky81682: obviously the categories should not have been emptied before some sort of consensus was reached. This is just not appropriate. Have you already brought that up with them? At least their edit summaries tend to be pretty clear, so you could probably go more-or-less sanely through their user contributions and find the relevant edits, but it looks like they are doing this over and over with categories they don't like. - Jmabel ! talk 07:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I see this is already being discussed on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, so why ask on my talk page? - Jmabel ! talk 07:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why actually lol. You are right, I'll bring it up with Trivialist myself. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like he's now undone a lot of this, maybe all. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion on the Universal Code of Conduct and its revision. If so, do you want to share it? Krok6kola (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krok6kola: so far, what I've seen is reasonable. I'm not at all sure it is necessary, but it's probably inevitable. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the inevitable part. Krok6kola (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krok6kola: I haven't yet read the new enforcement guidelines, will do that today. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a distinct show of courtesy on the part of some editors as a result of this Universal Code. So I am in favor. I can't get into the weeds of any changes. (My ADD and advanced years) Krok6kola (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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! 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Bucharest - Dec 2014 - B-dul Regina Elisabeta 02.jpg

Yours sincerely, Abzeronow (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would never have guessed that was an FoP violation, but nothing to do if it is. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user had tagged it with Category:Palatul Creditului Industrial and it had looked like it had matched. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Abzeronow: It looks correctly identified. I hadn't considered that an inter-war building might still be under copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I haven't had any arguments with anyone,I get insulted,they say my photos are crap,I don't intend to participate in QI OR FP but just put up photos but I get blocked for facts from 10 years ago. Thanks for your attention and sorry for the trouble. 151.46.218.2 00:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I have never had any of my own photos selected for FP. The people who vote there have a very specific aesthetic, which for the most part I don't share. I personally find it not worth fighting over.
• However, if you are interested in having an account restored here, I suggest you resist the urge to post from an IP address while blocked. Stick to making requests for an unblock on your own talk page. Anything else is likely to be considered block evasion. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't even consider unblocking me, and anyway I didn't insist on posting pictures, I put up undoubtedly better pictures but since I am blocked then they say I insist. It's a dog biting its own tail. Anyway sincerely thank you for your interest. It was kind. 151.46.218.2 00:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You are kind! Krok6kola (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bother again but now he did this [1]--109.52.98.243 21:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you understand that by posting to my user page, you are violating your block, which makes it pretty much impossible for me to take you side in this. You obviously are not good at leaving well enough alone. Right now, I'm inclined to stay out of this. If you post to my page again, including if you respond to this, I'll probably have to support the ban. Just stop. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Hello. How can i help here? This category needs to be emptied so it can be deleted as per your discussion, I could empty it unless you want to do it. - Category:Historic Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Photos I found another similar one by the same sock. Category:Historic Photos Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ooligan: I'll take on the Gorge one. If you want to take on the Forest Service one, great. Just a matter of working out what needs to be recategorized how, then getting rid of the empty category. I haven't started yet, so I don't know how much of an undertaking it will be. That last one is big, though: it might take a lot of work. I think it may be more a question of how can I help you on that monster? - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jmabel Should I open a discussion on this Category:Historic Photos Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region before I take action or do I reference your and Pi's discussion on that similar category. I just want to do the process properly. I can ask for your help if I need it, but you always seem to have something you are working on. I enjoy these old files- I wish that some originating institutions would let us (The Commons) have the highest quality versions of these images that are reserve for paying customers. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ooligan: I don't think we need a further discussion on this, it's pretty clear that a now-banned user left a mess which ought to be cleaned up. Judging by what I've seen in the last half-hour or so, it's quite a mess: so far all but one file I've looked at was terribly categorized (as in: missing any relevant categories, and most of them containing irrelevant categories, like a mountain that was 50 miles away and not in the picture). Not sure how much time I'll put into this right now: I was in the middle of working my way through thousands of genuinely good, high-resolution images from Seattle Public Library. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ooligan: Example of how bad: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1790_Paulina_Peak_Lookout_Tower,_Deschutes_NF,_OR_8-1960_(22140420003).jpg&diff=735128683&oldid=735024309. Maybe we should turn those bad "Historic" categories into maintenance categories, and indicate that all the photos in them need a cat check. What do you think? - Jmabel ! talk 19:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds good. Others may help. When empty, these maintenance categories will be deleted? -- Ooligan (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Ooligan: Yes. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For deleting my page. Thanks!

Waylon111 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It needs an admin to change/implement it, but this change to {{Internet Archive Link}} is overdue. Template:Internet Archive link/sandbox. The next problem is how to implement a review process. The best guide I have is the existing License review process, but I am not sure how you prevent the user that uploaded the file self-signing that they verified it.

The intention with this change is that eventually all compatible files are in the /verified cat. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ShakespeareFan00: Better to make this sort of request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard than to hit me up. I don't really know enough about this template to make a judgement call, someone else will.
• But a couple of comments: 1) the documentation will need to be updated as well. 2) I presume that the intent with "reviewed" is specific to when this is used to cite a source (since there can be other reasons to link to an archived file, e.g. for a citation). We don't want to end up categorizing some file as having a licensing problem because its description cites a copyrighted file on the Internet Archive. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm... That's a reasonable considerationShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could partition Category:Henry G. Gilbert Nursery and Seed Trade Catalog Collection by year?

Also if you find post 1928 editions of catalogs with notices, you know what to do, already :)

It would be nice to get this cleaned up quickly. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ShakespeareFan00: any particular reason you are asking me rather than someone who has worked on that category? I've got a lot of other projects I'm working on. I guess I'm willing to do this if there's some reason I'd be better than a random person... - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked you because you'd done splits of categories before:) If you know of better people, please kindly point them in my direction... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ShakespeareFan00: This particular one is immense (over 20,000 files) and doesn't look easy (no obvious consistent pattern to the filenames that indicates the dates). I suspect someone will have to spend hours, if not days, on this, and it isn't in an area I'm particularly interested in. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was using a regexp on a field in the book template, not the filename ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Makes sense but, again: why would this be any easier for me to follow through than for people who have been working in that category? I don't bring any special expertise, and nothing here requires an admin. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      No worries, I already got you were busy right now. I was giving a technicial explanation of how i was going to proceed when I had time. Generally, I try to find an admin to do big partitions because they have access to bot flags, a normal user doesn't (as well as higher level API access to do mass actions more quickly.). It doesn't need an admin as such, it just gets done more quickly with tools admins can use, but normal users can't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Jmabel/Archival
Good evening, with your permission, I would like to know how to make the photos that I took with copyright or copyright Jimmy Yelzer (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:Jmabel/Archival - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimmy Yelzer: You cannot "make something copyright". Assuming the work to be copyrightable, I believe that right now under the law of every country in the world, it is copyrighted at creation. If it is legitimately your own work, you own the copyright, and can grant a license. If it is someone else's work, they own the copyright, and only they can grant a license. There is such a thing (in some countries) as transferring copyright, but usually that can only be done by a formal document or declaration by the old copyright-holder. In particular: you cannot take some random thing off of the Internet or off of a television screen and somehow make it OK to upload to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, my friend, I'm sorry to bother you, but I wanted to know Mithal. I took a picture with my mobile phone, and I want to copyright it. I mean, the property rights remain in my opinion, because I am a fan of writing articles about the captured personalities, and I have knowledge about places and people. With your permission, I am sorry if this bothers you for free Jimmy Yelzer (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jimmy Yelzer: I have no idea who or what "Mithal" is, nor really what you mean by "the captured personalities" nor "the property rights remain in my opinion."
• If you take a picture with your mobile phone, you own the copyright by default (unless it's just a picture of someone else's copyrighted work).
• Please, though: there is nothing here that I can uniquely help you with. You already opened up a discussion on the help desk. Please let's keep it there, where anyone can step in, not just me. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to teach me how to copyright the photos I took with a camera Jimmy Yelzer (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jimmy Yelzer: See my reply above. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please how can I copyright the pictures I take with my phone camera Jimmy Yelzer (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* @Jimmy Yelzer: See my reply above. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmabel: On 05:41, 4 January 2021 you helped me out on the Helpdesk in the thread "How to remove autocomplete from comment summary" (Sorry I don't know how Commons archives discussions). At the time you explained very clearly why edit summary comments are subject to autocomplete, but regular edits are not (thank you!).

Since that time I have periodically experienced strange additIons or removals of text from edits I have made, and am trying to figure out why this happens. Just wondering if you know something about this subject? I realize you are very busy, so please take your time.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Ottawahitech: "strange additions or removals" isn't specific enough for anyone to have a chance of answering you.
2. Probably better asked on Help desk, where a number of experienced people will see your question, rather than just one. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atwngirl has responded to your post on their user talk page. Apparently, they were hospitalized due to a car accident and unable to respond at the time. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/02#Category pages that look like quasi-Wikipedia articles has already been archived. If you want to re-open the discussion to give them a chance to respond, then that's fine with me. I'm not sure how Commons works regarding that, but you might know since you're an admin, -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm kind of wondering what the options are for the CfD now that GPSLeo started the competing discussion. It's not super great to have multiple discussion for the same issue going on at once. So is there even a point in leaving the CfD open for further discussion or will whatever the outcome of it is just be null in void because of the proposal? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adamant1: I hate to say it, but my answer is "I don't care". It's a minor political party, about which we will never have a large amount of media, and I walked away from the discussion because it essentially consisted of the same people restating the same positions over and over. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you. I should probably just walk away from it to since they clearly aren't going to be reasonable or care about other people's opinions. I guess it's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the HD discussion about Allentown? Altwngirl posted a comment but in the process of doing so completely removed all of the other comments made by others. While I'm sure this was done by mistake, this is the kind of thing that can really piss others off and make them not try to want to help Altwngirl. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked Jeff G. this question but then I thought you might know more about the subject: Do you think categorizing an airport that did not exist until 1973 as Category:Ben Gurion International Airport in the 1930s, when in the 1930s that area was part of the Category:British Mandate of Palestine, part of the British Empire? Since the airport was named for Ben Gurion after his death in 1973, is this categorization misleading? Am I being too concrete? Too hard-headed? (User:Geagea, an Admin, disagrees with me.) Thanks, Krok6kola Krok6kola (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: it's really tricky, especially in a case like this where the names are so loaded with reference to ethnic and national identities (have a look through en:Talk:Gdańsk/Archive index if you want to see it carried to an extreme. Discussion of the name of the article exceeds the length of the article).

We certainly end up with things like Category:1870 in Washington (state) because no one is really invested in distinguishing Washington Territory from Washington State (or, in the case of Category:1845 in Washington (state), the part of Oregon Territory that later became Washington Territory). Similarly for a category like Category:644 in Spain. Spain? in 644? Oh, well.

I'd say the category name Category:Ben Gurion International Airport in the 1930s is probably OK, but it needs parent categories that relate to the political geography of the time (looks like it has that in Category:Aviation in the British Mandate of Palestine, and it certainly ought to have a description indicating what it was known as in that era. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Did Ben Gurion airport exist then? Did it exist under that same name?

The answers to this are pretty obvious: it existed, but as Lydda Airfield and later as Lod Airport. So IMHO, it should be named and categorized as Lydda when that is the contemporary name. These can all be sub-categories of Ben Gurion, as the contemporary name. There is no rule (as is regularly claimed) that category names for subcategories have to match the parent, or each other!

I have no strong opinions on Lydda airfield, airport or even RAF Lydda. It was an airfield. That much is definition-based, we are reasonable to choose to use it as a description and name. As a shared RAF and civilian airfield, it was typical to distinguish this by use: a civilian would describe landing at the airfield, and the military establishment hosted there would be RAF Lydda. Many contemporary maps for pilots already describe it as an airport, which implies a sense of international traffic and the customs facilities to support that – which Lydda did have. In its post–1948 era as Lod this was clearly as Lod Airport, so that should be used for that 25 year period too (and "Airport" is now clear).

More eyes could also be useful at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Ypenburg Airfield, which involves a massive and half-done bulk rename of airfields in the Netherlands. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola and Andy Dingley: to be honest, I'd have no problem with that either. Maybe Category:Lydda Airfield and Category:Lod Field as subcats of Category:Ben Gurion International Airport, with their own subcats for the various by-year or by-decade categories? But do take a look at the way (for example) handles this with template {{Washington Territory}} (which I added). I suspect a template like that may be in order no matter what solution is adopted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I (vaguely) thought that Lod was always an Airport? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Dingley: Then you are probably right. Zero specific expertise here, just looking at the various acceptable ways similar things have been handled here, not trying to make a concrete suggestion. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jmabel, thanks for your rational reply. I am staying out of this now. Too much vehemence. And with an Admin being unwilling to have a dialogue, it is a useless. My edits having nothing to do with the airport were reverted also, so I am staying away from the whole topic. Krok6kola (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am very sorry so i decided to give you a kitten wikilove

--BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmabel, today I have seen that the user to whom it was reported yesterday insists on the issue (despite the fact that I said that I would let the matter rest), but as you can see, today he has threatened to denounce me as far as possible, which could be translated as a Wikihounding threat. I am not going to reverse the message and I am only limiting myself to informing about the possible consequences of what this user will do, taking advantage of your position in good faith and avoiding any problematic user. Taichi (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]