User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer
Tip: Categorizing images
Hello, Blue-Haired Lawyer!
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.
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]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
BotMultichillT 08:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Wiki logo blue watermark background.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Statutes at large ireland.jpg was uncategorized on 25 February 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Treaty of Lisbon ratification.svg
- I'm afraid you'll have to write to me in a language I can understand! Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
So what languages do you understand? If you understand only one of the 23 (!) official languages of the EU, stopp changing maps that influences articles, you can't even read. Having your own map File:Treaty of Lisbon ratification-accurate.svg is best the solution. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ci sono multi stati-membri dell'Unione Europea che non hanno un Presidente! C'é anche al mimino un stato dove non è necessario la firma dello capo dello stato per ratificare Lisbona! Even if I did only speak one language I'd still be right and you'd still be wrong. It would still be necessary, per the clear wording of the Lisbon Treaty, for every member state to deposit their ratification instrument, with the Italian government. Just in case you don't understand either plain Italian or English, here's it spelt out for you in German:
- "Artikel 6
- (1) Dieser Ver trag bedarf der Ratifikation durch die Hohen Ver tragspar teien im Einklang mit ihren verfassungsrechtlichen Vorschriften. Die Ratifikationsurkunden werden bei der Regierung der Italienischen Republik hinterlegt.
- (2) Dieser Ver trag tritt am 1. Januar 2009 in Kraft, sofern alle Ratifikationsurkunden hinterlegt worden sind, oder andernfalls am ersten Tag des auf die Hinterlegung der letzten Ratifikationsurkunde folgenden Monats."
- Am I right: arrogant + narrow-minded = you must be a real lawyer! --Askatasuna (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just insult me then why don't you! All of this just goes to show that we have higher standards of accuracy on English Wikipedia. We also have a policy on civility, but I guess that doesn't arise here either. I may well be both arrogant and narrow-minded, but if sticking to these fairly basic policies counts as this, then I'll just have to be arrogant and narrow-minded.
- Not all EU member states have presidents and not all heads of state are even involved in treaty ratification. All you had to do was wait three days for the formal process to be completed. Instead you reverted explained changes by myself and another user, and then even went as far as editing English Wikipedia to revert to this image after Poland actually had ratified. (A w:WP:POINT if ever I saw one). Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It's easy: If you want a map showing "Ratification procedure finished and documents deposited" use one of the two maps with the legend: "Ratification procedure finished and documents deposited". My edit in the English Wikipedia was adding your map ; it's not my fault that someone removed it. That other people don't want to use a map like this, is probably the same reason, that no newspaper had a headline: "Letter arrived in Rome!" --Kolja21 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1. When you edited English Wikipedia, you must have known that by then, the Polish ratification instrument had been lodged and that my forked image had not been updated to reflected. (Hence this edit.) Purposefully putting the non-updated image on English Wikipeida was clearly making a w:WP:POINT.
- 2. Image:Treaty of Lisbon ratification.svg was an is meant to reflect current progress in the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. This is not something which does not vary between language wikis. I grant you that it gives and gave the signature of a country's head of state as the final stage of ratification. This is wrong but nobody noticed before because they're normally the same day. On English Wikipedia edits to give 10 September as the date of Polish ratification were reverted (not just by me) because the actual date is 12 September. This may appear trivial to you but in reality it's just a thorough attempt to be accurate. If the media and other wikis lack patience and wish to jump the gun that's they're problem, not ours. Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, in file:Schengen Area.svg, Liechtenstein should be green, not grey, since they are set to implement Schengen in the future ("late 2011", according to Wikipedia). -- pne (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well spotted but you're jumping the gun a little. Liechtenstein haven't officially implemented the Schengen rules yet, although they are due to do so by the end of the year. For more see: en:Schengen Area#Liechtenstein. Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
|File:Irish Fiscal Compact referendum posters.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.