Improve your conduct

You were uncivil and assumed bad faith to quite a high level on DR. Don't do that- that is not good conduct. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Then don't post lazy DRs with no policy-based justification for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You are doubling down on your bad behavior for no reason by being uncivil calling me lazy for no reason. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't post DRs where you give no valid reason for deletion, but instead expect other editors to have to work through and see which of the three you've given might be applicable. If you think they're out of scope, then list those as being out of scope. If you think they have no licence, they state that they have no licence. But don't just handwave that you think things ought to be deleted, but you can't put up a reason why. Especially not when they're clearly licensed by their uploader and author, but you still handwave as 'might not be licensed'. Is that really something you think? (because you're now expecting other editors to do work to check this) Are you claiming that the licences (obviously there and visible) are somehow invalid? Or is it just (as these were) that they were uncategorised?! You complain here about 'civility'. But it's seemingly OK for you to tag photographer's work as worthless, without even needing to say why. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

And now you twist my words without any reason. I never once said license, I said dubious copyright- bcs some are uploads from third parties, which are sometimes a problem on Commons- something you should know given your number of edits. I put up a reason- namely "out of scope". "might not be licensed"- again twisting my words. And now you're just yapping about licenses- just make a literal strawman and argue with that perhaps? Bad faith again. I did say why- they are out of scope.

Took this to COM:AN/U btw. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Mass DRs

Hi. When constructing mass DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gilteva, please save that subpage work first before tagging the nominated files (or purge / null edit the file description pages later), so we don't end up with some 28 files needlessly in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage that I just had to clean up.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Often mass DRs are much easier with VFC, which always gets this right. - Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scans from 'All About Railways'

The template needs attention. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe. But the fix for that would be on the template, not by stripping it from the category. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Scans of correspondence from the West Gloucestershire Power Company in the 1940s

Template:Scans of correspondence from the West Gloucestershire Power Company in the 1940s 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 template, 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. 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） ∙ +/−

Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scans from 'All About Railways'

These templates put the categories into Category:1935 books not the appropriate one of Category:1935 books by country. Can you alter the template? Rathfelder (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Trivially so.

Although it doesn't belong in Category:1935 books by country, so why would you even do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The same issue with several similar templates. This should be in 1935 books from the United Kingdom as it now is. Thank you Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• This is vandalism. Cut it out. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  These templates are defective. If you want to keep them can you please mend them. And please dont be insulting. Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

They are not defective. They operate perfectly and simply, as originally intended. If we have since introduced some subcategories, then they might at most be in need of updating to match. That is an easy task (easier than the multiple changes otherwise needed). You could do it yourself, or I would be happy to do it for you, if asked.

But what is not acceptable is for your disruptive editing and now vandalism (a term I do not use lightly). You know that you are causing some friction here, and you're doing it repeatedly, and now you've chosen to start a third batch of it, all because you are seemingly incapable of editing collaboratively (read the many complaints on your own talk page). So cut it out.

If you want such changes, either do them right, or ask and I'm happy to assist. But any more of this and I will seek admin sanctions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I am doing my best to sort out vastly overpopulated categories of books by date into books by country. That is not intended to be disruptive. I would be very grateful if you can alter these templates so that they also do that. I'm afraid I know nothing about templates. Thank you for those you have already fixed. Rathfelder (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you fix Gnome Monosoupape cover.jpg so it goes into Category:1917 books from the United Kingdom? Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

and Scans from 'Internal Combustion Engines', Wimperis, 1915 in 1915 books from the United Kingdom? Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Or could you tell me how the templates can be amended? Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Mediawiki template syntax is ghastly and unfriendly. But this is a fairly simple change. You can just edit the template, then search for [[Category:1917 books for the place to edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think I have succeeded, but its not at all obvious! Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

But I am stuck with Category:Scans from 'Heat Engines', 1913, which appears in Category:1909 books and I cant see why. Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Read the description, such as at Category:Scans from 'Heat Engines', 1913

This is a 1909 book, published in 1909. The particular edition scanned was the 1913 edition, but that's not, AFAIK, significantly different. There was an earlier 1889 edition under a different title, but that is quite different.

So overall, I'd categorise this under 1909. Up to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesnt make sense to call the category 1913 and then put it in 1909. They should match, and I dont mind which way. But I meant I couldnt see see where the date came from in the template.

Scans from Railway Magazine should be categorised as a magazine, not a book. Rathfelder (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scans from 'Minimum Gauge Railways', 1898

I've edited this so it is categorised as Category:1898 books from England, but it doesn't appear there. It appears in Category:1898 books. Your advice would be very welcome! Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be correctly categorised (see Category:Scans from 'Minimum Gauge Railways', 1898), so I expect that was a caching problem with the categories that include it. Give it a while, it will appear. Try Ctrl-F5 in your browser. What it probably needed (I've just done this) was a null edit to Category:Scans from 'Minimum Gauge Railways', 1898 : edit it, add some blank lines to the end of the category and save it. It won't appear in the history log (whitespace all gets trimmed anyway) but it forces the cache to refresh. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)