- The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.
"Restore categorisation for consistency with Category:Feminism, which is a subcat of Category:Activism. Also, feminists are not necessarily women by definition."
If you want. But if you recat one category, please, do the same thing for ALL the categories. I don't like when we have a list of categories completely different depending on where we are. Swedish feminists (or whatever the subject) are not supposed to be different from Canadian or Spanish. Thank you. Okki (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that such consistency is desirable. However, my focus is on keeping Category:Sweden and some of its subcategories nice, orderly and consistent with their parent categories. That's big enough a scope for me. Even if I broaden it further, I'll always end up leaving some of the categories at the periphery of my scope in a state that's inconsistent with its siblings. The category structure will never be perfect, but I think that keeping Category:Feminists from Sweden consistent with Category:Feminism is a step in the right direction, and I hope that we can agree that taking one step in the right direction–even if you don't take all the steps–is better than taking none. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, help me, then
I made that image. I had a note about it, I edited it, and so I deleted the tag. Don't reprimand me. Help me, if I didn't do it correctly. Evertype (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's keep the discussion in one place. I think Commons:Deletion requests/File:Proposed Streamer of United Ireland.jpg contains the most complete summary of the issue. If you have specific questions after reading that, feel free to follow up there; it's on my watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi LX, sorry for the lateness of my answer but I was into a wiki-pause until a few minutes ago. The problem that you pointed out, sadly, is a pretty common problem for the imports from it.wiki, mainly because Italian users tend to use in a random way the templates. I'll try to fix this with some bot running on it.wiki and fixing, where possible, the wrong templates. Fale (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
HiHi, may be you are right :) I've just transferred the file, not uploaded :)--Gaeser (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not transfer files to Commons without first verifying that the information provided for the source checks out. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you restored the comments you placed on my discussion page after I removed them.
I'm accustomed to using Wikipedia, a sister project of Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia users are free to remove all comments on their discussion pages per this policy, regardless of the reason for removing them. The rationale behind this policy is that the comments are always displayed in that user's talk page history which no user can delete because the software won't allow it. Wikimedia Commons' software has this same capability. Why then are Wikipedia Commons users not permitted to remove comments on their discussion pages? RecoveryMinded (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- You've yet to respond to my comment. In the meanwhile, I was reading WMC policy and discovered the following info:
- Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.
- The above info came frome the following WMC policy page: Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? Feel free to verify it.
- I also checked the WMC list of administrators and you're not on it (although I see you used to be one). Therefore, I doubt you have the right to restore information to my talk page after I've removed it and responded to it.
- I have now responded to you on this issue twice (this comment and the following one on 11 November 2009: ). Also, I now have a solid understanding of WMC's copyright rules. Therefore, I'm removing your comments from my talk page in keeping with the policy I cited above. Keep in mind I will report you for a policy violation if you persist in restoring information on my talk page, something you apparently don't have the right to do. RecoveryMinded (talk) RecoveryMinded (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, thanks for your messages and sorry for not responding more promptly. I've been busy work and real life. You've raised a few different points, so I'll try to address them one by one.
- Firstly, regarding the reason blanking talk page messages is strongly discouraged at Commons, I can't speak for everyone here, so I can't objectively rationalize the consensus, but I do have a couple of theories as to why things are the way they are here. Commons administrators also rely on talk pages for a lot of their work, probably to a greater extent than at most other Wikimedia projects. Properly archived pages are far easier to review than the history of a page that has been repeatedly blanked at various times.
- Secondly, regarding the Commons talk page guidelines, in describing existing practices, it does indeed state that some users delete comments after having responded to them. The way I'm reading it, it's somewhat ambiguous on whether or not this deletion is typically accompanied by archival, and it doesn't say how common this practice is. (Not very common at all in my experience.) In prescribing recommended practices, it is quite clear about discouraging actively erasing messages without responding to them. Now, I do realize that you have responded to my notes, but as it was done elsewhere, that had slipped my mind when I noticed the comments being deleted. (I interact with a lot of users, and I put pages where I've left comments on my watchlist.)
- Thirdly, regarding the right to revert blanking, this is not something that is limited to administrators. The special privileges afforded to administrators (deletion, undeletion, protection, blocking, file renaming and MediaWiki namespace editing) are managed through technical mechanisms, not just policy. Any user has the right to revert edits that they believe to be improper (as long as they don't edit war or disrupt the project in some other way).
- I'm convinced that your removal of the comments are in good faith and based on your interpretation of the talk page guidelines. I acknowledge that you have responded to the messages and that your interpretation of the guidelines is reasonable. I'd still encourage archiving, but I won't insist on it or restore your talk page.
- I hope this sorts things out and wish you smooth sailing ahead. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for agreeing with me. I appreciate it. RecoveryMinded (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved back to User talk:TwoWings#Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Bob Bobster on Flickr. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Alex! Thank you for identifying such a lot of copyvios, tagging them for deletion. :-) --Polarlys (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. It's crazy what one can dig up with just a few good search expressions. If you get a chance, please keep an eye on the Category:Unknown subcategories that mature next week, as I tagged quite a few files as missing information as part of the same review. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, we could spend weeks just digging up album covers, google earth images and content like this. Do you use any scripts for notifying users? --Polarlys (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just the Quick Delete, User Messages gadgets and diligent use of the watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seems as I need a little technical upgrade ;-) Thank you! --Polarlys (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Medhat Montasser#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You poked me at en.wiki about this file a few weeks ago, but I was on break. It's a copyvio, and I deleted it here. Maxim(talk) 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers for that. Hope you enjoyed your break. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Holger.Ellgaard#File source is not properly indicated: File:Miniatyrbåtyxa.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Need`s to Upload Some Picture
Welcome LX,Please I need to upload some personal pictures to use. It`s Pictures of my family Thanks.. Medhat Montasser (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, and... do you need me to do anything, or why are you telling me this? Are the files within the project scope of Commons? (See COM:NOT#HOST and COM:NOT#SOCIAL as well.) Can you show that the copyright holder (usually the photographer) has approved publication under a free license? If you can answer yes to both these questions, then there should be no problem. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In case you've missed it, since yesterday the patrolling functinality has been enabled for all edits, no longer just for page creations. This enables us to track, for example, anonymous edits on Commons. I'd like to invite you to check out the Anonymous edits list and maybe patrol part of a day. See also the updated Commons:Patrol.
If you have any questions please leave message on the CVU talkpage, my talkpage or on IRC. -- Krinkletalk 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I did notice it and some of the discussions leading up to it. It falls within the scope of some of my usual activities here, so I'll have a look at the instructions and maybe have a go with the new tools sometime soon. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
dont by a fool, bitte. deleting a file becausue got a "badly name"? that are a nonsence, and, rename it better way to solve this "problem" User:Fredy.00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (possible open proxy)
- What part of Do not remove this tag until the deletion request is closed are you having trouble grasping? If you disagree with the deletion nomination, discuss it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity2.jpg. Blanking the deletion tag will not make the deletion discussion go away; it'll only make it less visible to people who may wish to object that the file is up for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is just nonsense, I do not know what your problem to understand it - delete the file because it has a weird name? It simply makes no sense, and it is a mere vandalism ...
- you are stupid or can not read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'll repeat this once more: If you disagree with the deletion nomination, voice your opinion at the deletion discussion. Blanking the deletion tag will not make the deletion discussion go away. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Listen, you have a problem with reading or what exactly is going on? you can not understand that, delete the file due to improper name is this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't recall ever having expressed an opinion on whether or not the file should be deleted. Your blanking of the deletion tag will also not affect the outcome of the deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity2.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Category:Grimsta nature reserve
Hoppsan, jag var visst inne och rotade i Category:Grimsta nature reserve samtidigt som du. Hoppas jag inte ställde till någon oreda. --Zejo (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Det är ju kul att det är fler som är inne och petar i Stockholmskategorierna, men varifrån kommer uppgiften om att Grimsta naturreservat ligger i Blackeberg och Södra Ängby? Jag tog nyligen bort kategorin från Category:Bromma (stadsdelsområde), eftersom gränserna för naturreservatet enligt Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontors kartor (gröna heldragna linjer) tydligt ligger helt och hållet innanför stadsdelen Grimstas gränser i Hässelby-Vällingby. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Det verkar stämma att det ska ingå i Blackeberg och Södra Ängby också. Jag vet inte vad det är för gränser stadsbyggnadskontoret visar, men enligt kartan på http://www.stockholm.se/KlimatMiljo/Natur/Naturreservat-i-Stockholms-stad/ sträcker sig reservatet betydligt längre ut. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)