User talk:Lx 121

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
English: Welcome to the Commons, Lx 121!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png 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.

Icon apps query.svg 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 (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png 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
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png 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 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Category:Images of/from the D.D.R.[edit]

Hi Lx121, this catgory does not fit in any of our current catgory schemas. Please search in the subcategories of Category:German Democratic Republic for good topic categories. --Martin H. (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't shout[edit]

Please don't SHOUT with uppercase letters when you're commenting. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please respect closure[edit]

of deletion requests. Edits made after closure will be reverted. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Page move notification[edit]

Hi Lx 121, i moved some pages you created in the Gallery namespace (the main namespace on Commons) to your userspace, you can see them in your subpages. I dont know why do you created, for example, User:Lx 121/pagemaker, this page is useless. Everyone can create a redlink everywhere if he wants a gallery on this subject. It does not make sence to create galleries (or categories) by bot with a "whishlist". We have explicite instructions in many languages how to create categories and galleries, your pages are maintenance on a field that is far, far advanced compared to the structure you try to develope. --Martin H. (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Street view of Prague.jpg[edit]

Hi Lx! In order for an image to receive featured status, it is necessary for the image to receive more than just a majority of support votes. The ratio of support to oppose must be at least 2:1. For example, the image linked to received 7 supports. If there had been 3 opposes, it would have been promoted to a featured picture. If there had been 4 opposes, it would not have been promoted. This image received 6 opposes to 7 supports, which is why I closed it as I did. This information is available in the Featuring and delisting rules on the main FP candidates page. Hope that helps! Maedin\talk 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think I agree most with number 4! It stresses me, trying to decide where to answer people, :-) Anyway, you're welcome! Maedin\talk 06:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remain calm and collegial[edit]

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

May I also point you at the fact that using friends (called meatpuppets) to support your votes in FPC (or anywhere else) is akin to using sockpoppets and equally not allowed. Lycaon (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wittig, as name of photographer(s?), Germany[edit]

Hi Lx, can you please explain the purpose of this category? Wittig is a common german family name. For images from the german federal archives created by someone called Wittig, from the GDR photo agency Zentralbild, you already created Category:Deutsches Bundesarchiv pictures by Wittig which is ok. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons naming standard[edit]

I think that we have a major problem with your creative interpretation of the Commons naming standard. It cannot fit with the other category naming conventions. --Foroa (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi; could you explain that more clearly? also pls define who is "we"? Lx 121 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, examples of categories which are not compliant with the Commons naming rules (=we): all categories in Category:Rhyolite, Nevada, for example:

Example of redundant category:

--Foroa (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

you are ignorant of the subject; constanta refers to 4 distinct entities within romania; 1. city 2. metropolitan region 3. port & facilities. 4. county. if you will kindly stop vandalising my work before i have had time to finish it; you might actually understand the reasons for the organization. Lx 121 (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Please calm down - Foroa may have misunderstood your intentions on the last one, but neither has he deleted it. Some of the other categories are clearly not compliant, and Foroa is quite correct to rename / move them directly. Ingolfson (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Foroa is one of the more active and longer-serving administrators of this project. "We" are many Commons editors and admins, both present and past, who have created and agreed and written down and most importantly USED certain standards. Most of these are only de-facto standard, but are backed up by (literally) hundreds of thousands of edits and tens of thousands of categories, which we constantly work to make and keep consistent. Therefore, we'd like to ask you to respect these de-facto standards.
Uses of, for example "/" in a category name are not found on Commons, unless the en:given name of something would include a "/". Locations also have a quite specific syntax. For example Category:Rhyolite, Nevada/mines/Montgomery Shoshone Mine would be more correctly Category:Montgomery Shoshone Mine in Rhyolite, Nevada. That assumes that "Montgomery Shoshone Mine" is a given name of which multiple examples exist (otherwise, the correct category would be just Category:Montgomery Shoshone Mine), and also assumes that there are multiple places called "Rhyolite". The extra "mine" is not used at all, such things are covered by parent categories that the category gets placed in.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask us. Ingolfson (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As a further example, Category:Wittig, as name of photographer(s?), Germany, has several non-standard usages, such as a singular AND plural form name, and a "?" - neither of which is used on commons (no "?" unless in given names, all categories on Commons are generally plural). The correct category for the above would be either Category:Photographers named Wittig from Germany, or Category:Files created by photographers named Wittig from Germany, depending on what you meant creating it - though the "from Germany" qualifier seems a bit unnecessary at this stage. Ingolfson (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The category is intended as a temporary in-process measure, while sorting. there are about 500-odd photographs from the DBA donation credited as "author: Wittig", there are also a few other german photos same author name, plus more non-german wittigs, & a few "wittig"s with more complete names. i'm trying to get them all sorted out, especially the large number of DBA images. i have one photographer as a known quantity, happens to be my uncle, & i can recognize some of his work; tho that doesn't really help on here, if i can't confirm author identity officially. some of the other works have shared credits; they were taken in east germany, as gov't work, so i'm not sure how to interpret the original labelling; possibly my uncle was the head of the group, or office; possibly something else. i'm also not quite sure if there was more than one "wittig" doing photo-work for the same organization, or where the other german "wittig" images fit in. i know it's a very small puzzle, but i have been enjoying sorting it out, as a minor hobby, & getting the authorships correctly organized (as much as possible) would be useful on here. especially longer-term as the mid-20th century fades further into history. Lx 121 (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the slashes, use whatever you want to distinguish segments of a category.

rhyolite, nevada (location) / mine (subject at location) / Montgomery Shoshone Mine (name of one of the mines located in the rhyolite area

how is that hard to understand?

also could we please edit my talk page one at a time, the conflicts are rally getting annoying

Lx 121 (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We are asking YOU to please not use slashes, and follow established conventions. And edit conflicts happen. I'll leave off for a while. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stay mellow. Foroa did not delete that category, I did, because it is not conform to commons categorization procedure. Do not use slashes but use subcategories please. Lycaon (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lycaon; good to talk with you again. i am mellow; i was a bit annoyed about the edit conflicts on my talk pages because they kept happening... (that goes on the very long list of things in mediawiki that need fixing) i'm also rather unhappy with Foroa at the moment. if you read thru his messages on my talk page: 1. first he leaves me a rather vague message, somewhat oddly worded & unclear in intent 2. after i query his meaning, he leaves me a second, longer message where he informs me that one of the categories that i am in the process of working on has been deleted, without any kind of notice, much less a clear rationale; he also appears to take credit for this action. to be clear; i don't care about the use of slashes one way or the other; i care about organizing the material in a logical, searchable manner. with respect; every time i come on WMC looking for something to use on wikip, or when i spend some time sorting material on here, it seems like the only naming convention that applies, is not actually having any kind of standardized conventions. the naming & organization of categories is all over the place; i always have to hunt to find the right classification, & i often find repetitions, redundancies, cross-language mix-ups, variable spellings, & almost always variations (large & small) in the category naming system. it's painful trying to find the right location to place, or retrieve media! across all the wikimedia projects, organizing the information we collect seems to be the biggest problem; right now, for material that's been on here long enough for them to have processed it, google is doing a far better job of sorting wikimedia's massive collections of information, than the mediawiki software is. i kno, that's a problem beyond the scope of what we're discussing here; i'm testing a system of organization on rhyolite, nevada. i picked rhyolite because i've been working on the article over @ wikip en & also because i'm going to be adding something over a dozen pd-usa pre-1923 historic images of the place. the exact sub-categorizations reflect some of the incoming material; i.e. 2 schools, an image of the second bottle house. i couldn't care less about the exact details of the naming convention, use slashes/don't use slashes; but, if you go & have a look at the results, in the category Rhyolite, Nevada you will find that things are far better organized than they were previously, & the collection of images is now easier to search through, & much easier for someone who doesn't know very much about rhyolite to understand what they're looking at. the place is a popular tourist attraction & i expect we will be getting more images of it, from time to time, as well as the ones i'll be adding (hopefully i'll get them all up this month; too many other projects on wikim, all at once). if you could point me to a policy page describing the naming conventions, i'll be happy to follow it! :) Lx 121 (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright, photos of statues[edit]

3 dimensional art does not fall under the catagory as you described. Faithful reproductions of 2 dimesional art cannot be copyrighted, however images of statues are the property of the photographer or site that posts them.

On Wikimedia commons a standard has been set and I noticed many images that had been previously tagged as having a disputed lisence. I have taken efforts to get those images taken off....however I am also finding where the images are located and re-uploading them with the propr lisence. Just because it is in the public domain does not mean the image can be uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons without the proper sourcing.

Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

POTY2008 ip votes[edit]

Hi, thank you for your comment. I posted a message in Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2008#IP votes.--miya (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: pointy cat edits[edit]

Im working on Special:WantedCategories, I remember this two particular edits you are refering to and yes, I removed them because they where simply red categories redundant to the existing categorie shema. I dont think you can call this edit which merges a lot of COM:OVERCAT with almost red categories into one category: the most specific category for every image. --Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 48841244b1e403eeb851c63bbf50a735[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

{{Nopenis}}[edit]

The last 2 edits have been vandalism reverts. Besides, being a likely target for angry users wanting to vandalize something, semi-protection seems a good idea. Notice that it's only semi-protection, not full protection. Regular users that are not admins can still edit it as needed. Belgrano (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Penis, male human[edit]

Over the years, through careful observation and patient analysis, I came to realize that penises are mostly attached to males. Don't you think that the category would better be named Category:Penis, human or simply Category:Human penis? –Tryphon 21:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

haha; fair point, but i'm thinking in terms of an overall schema: penis, male human as opposed to penis, male canine penis, male equine etc. ad nausaum.

also; in the great, wide world of biota, there are creatures where the genital distinctions don't "follow the rules" of gender. or species where each individual belongs to both sexes. there are also biota with "penis-like" growths that are not male. not to mention species, or individuals

additionally there are complicated human conditions: hermaphrodites,pseudo hermaphrodites, trans-gendered persons, & persons who undergo sexchange operations.

for the purposes of a filesystem for WMC as a media archive, given the limited capabilities of mediawiki, careful, absolutely unambiguous specificity seems best.

i'm open to debate on the exact style of wording we could standardize to, however. i just think it needs to be very carefully defined, to eliminate possible confusion & ambiguities of meaning, especially for persons whose english might be limited

had this same problem in other cats too:

venezuelan students, students of venezuels, or...? the first cat covers nationality of person, but might be ambiguous on whether the student is studying in venezuela, or not. the second cat is ambiguous as to whether the person is a student located in venezeula, or student who is studying venezuela.

if/when they ever get some decent sort/search tools on here, the problems should eventually sort themselves out.

was toying with the idea of setting up a standardized keyword format, but the search tools would need to be better.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope[edit]

Hello,

I don't use personal preferences, but could you give examples please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know what you were talking about, but I just saw Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#deletionist admin, and that most admins agree with me. You should think twice before making any such baseless accusations. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Erect penis, in art[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Erect penis, in art 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 category, 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--— Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Genital hair, by species[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Genital hair, by species 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 category, 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--— Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 08:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Shaved female genitalia, by species[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Shaved female genitalia, by species 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 category, 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--— Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 08:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Shaved male genitalia, by species[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Shaved male genitalia, by species 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 category, 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--— Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Male genitalia in art, by species[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Male genitalia in art, by species 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 category, 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--— Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 08:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove Deletion tags[edit]

Please do not remove Deletion tags as you did here. As the tag states "Do not remove this tag until the deletion request is closed.". Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

link[edit]

http://cgi.ebay.ca/1976-Canadian-Olympics-Silver-Coin-Set-Complete_W0QQitemZ160349041714QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_2?hash=item25558c3432&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1215%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

74.14.226.110 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Category:Sierra Nevada, North America[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Sierra Nevada, North America 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--RedWolf (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Patroller permissions vote[edit]

Hello, thank you for your participating in the discussion about if the patroller permissions should be enabled or not. You have opposed for the reason that there's currently no documentation about what the patrol right actually is and what it should be used for. This page has now been created at Commons:Patrol. If you still have any questions what this is, feel free to ask me. If you think the page should be improved, please let me know. As the desired page has now been created, I would be happy if you could reconsider your vote in order to find a solution that makes us all happy. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

McCrae House[edit]

Thanks for the note, and thanks for creating the category. There is no real need to disambiguate the category title - generally we don't create lengthy category titles in order to address problems that are unlikely to occur. The simplest category name (as long as it is accurate) is best. While it is always possible that there is another McCrae House elsewhere in the world, sharing the same name as this house but unrelated to John McCrae, I note that the Wikipedia article on this house goes by the simple McCrae House title, suggesting that we are unlikely to be creating any other McCrae House categories any time soon. The even less likely scenario is that we'd be creating categories for other houses in which John McCrae lived later in life - however I strongly doubt that those houses are widely known as McCrae House as this one is or that we'd be using McCrae House for the category name (frankly, it would just be confusing and unnecessary to do so). Further, even if disambiguation ever does become required for this category, it is extremely unlikely that the Category:McCrae House, Guelph, Ontario, Canada form would be used (that's a bit excessive - we'd probably only use one of the city, province or country name, depending on the subject of the other category with which we are trying to distinguish it). I hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Lx 121!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A reply[edit]

OK, I'm a bit busy these days but here are the quick facts:

  1. I'm from Hong Kong, and in case it helps my surname is Lai (黎).
  2. All shots are of myself and there are no female shots.
  3. They were taken about about one and a half years ago.
  4. And yes, I know you can guess my age.

Good luck! Kayau (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Category:Human anatomy, set of subject: User:Juicybnana[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Human anatomy, set of subject: User:Juicybnana 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 category, 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-Rocket000 (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hello!

Please be careful with reverting edits here: File:Human male genital sunbath.jpg

The image does not show Nudism and Sunbathing, thus, categories removed. The category Male human genitalia is removed due to COM:OVERCAT (generic categories). The other categories did not exist or have been deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Human penis category[edit]

Hi. I have suggested that Category:Penis, male human be renamed Category:Human penis. It seems simpler to me... are there non male penises we need to categorize? :-) Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, discuss at Category talk:Penis, male human if you wish. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved category[edit]

Hi Lx 121, I just did

Rename Category:Albrecht Dürer, works of to Category:Works by Albrecht Dürer (19 entries moved, 0 to go)

as to comply with commons naming rules and the naming in its contained subcategories. --Foroa (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your work on anatomy categories[edit]

Would be interesting to know:
Is your scheme of categorizing following an official Commons guideline or is it product of your personal thoughts of what is the correct way? I am refering to your remarks here. If it follows a official Commons guidline, where can it be found? Thanks in advance for clarification. --High Contrast (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved incorrectly named category[edit]

Hello Lx 121, I just did

Rename Category:Katsushika Hokusai, self-portraits by to Category:Self-portraits by Katsushika Hokusai (3 entries moved, 0 to go)

as to comply with commons naming rules and the naming in its contained subcategories. --High Contrast (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoration[edit]

My expertise is engravings and artworks, but I'd be happy to work on the paper objects you're doing scans of. Please give me as large of a scan as possible, and throw a link on my talk page to all such material.

I can't make guarantees as to speed, but I'll certainly try to go through it all. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token ec6b3b266fcc28522630110facb0c1ef[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Category:Taishō era gift-certificate - Sake (01); scan-set of a specific item[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Taishō era gift-certificate - Sake (01); scan-set of a specific item 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 category, 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--80.187.107.222 12:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sake gift certificate samurai woodblock print.jpg

[edit]

Hey!

I'd like to restore this, but could you do me a favour? Get some black paper/card, and put it behind the certificate and rescan. I'd like to see how much of the bleed-trough is an artefact of the scanning before I make any mistakes: Knowing what NOT to fix can be just as important as knowing what to fix. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

can-do, though i'm going to have to look around & see if i have any matte black paper (is black preferable as a b/g for the work, or do you just want it as a reference?). was planning on doing a re-scan for an archival (mega-sized) file eventually anyway; need to get the item a bit flatter on the scan bed tho, i'm not pleased about the "waviness". Lx 121 (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
would a photograph against a black cloth be sufficient (see the 47 ronin print & the kunisada ii/unknown prints for examples)? i'm critically deprived of black cardstock/paper & my usual backdrop cloth does not sit flat enough in the scanner >__< Lx 121 (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. A photograph would be good enough to know what to fix, at the least =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Lx 121, I hope you can live with that: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vendvidéki rét és erdő.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy and related categories[edit]

Hi, Lx 121. I'd like to bring to your attention a string of categories recently created by you, mainly related to Anatomy, which have the doubtlessly laudable aim of separating humans from animals. I have several concerns, including:

I'm sure that your intention is good but am concerned - as a mere amateur who occasionally strays into these areas, mainly because I have an interest in art - that the task of finding suitable categories will become impossibly difficult with the result that many people simply won't bother. Could I ask you to refrain from creating categories which are not in line with Commons naming convention, as noted above? I'm afraid that many may have to be deleted as, even if the rationality behind them is acceptable they are badly named and confusing. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Human beings, by chronological age 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--Anatiomaros (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Breaking votes on Commons talk:Sexual content[edit]

Twice an edit of yours has changed Ŝxeptomaniac to Ŝxeptomaniac.[1] I don't know why this is happened, but if you have software that is automatically making the conversion, please turn it off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

all i'm using is an the ordinary wikipage (with some of the user tools enabled) on a chrome webbrowser & i'm not in the habit of changing anyone else's comments; i'm typing this into a normal edit box, with no special features activated. if there's a bug, it's not on my end. Lx 121 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

...& there it is; it just did the thing you described. text in the edit box s x without the spacing, turns into ŝ

this doesn't happen when i type anywhere else but in the edit box on here. it looks like a special character is being invoked, but i'm not aware of having anything active, beyond the standard english characters.

since it doesn't seem to have affected your text, when you posted your entry, what were you using?

Lx 121 (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

& if you check this page's history, you will see that it doesn't even happen when i type s x / ŝ into the edit summary; therefore it's an edit box thing, possibly a crossover effect with some usertool in the settings options? so either it's a bug, or a "feature". if it's a feature, it's not one i was aware i had turned on.

in any case, my apologies. let me know if you figure out the exact cause?

Lx 121 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 /* Breaking votes on Commons talk:Sexual content */  ŝ    /* Breaking votes on Commons talk:Sexual content */  ŝx


/* Breaking votes on Commons talk:Sexual content */ ŝ /* Breaking votes on Commons talk:Sexual content */ sx


testing; it's definitely a quirk in the editor Lx 121 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be happening for me. It's clear that it's doing the sx -> ŝ to reverse an Esperanto to ASCII transliteration; do you have anything Esperanto related installed under your editor options?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

found it!

"EoMagicalConversion: Adds the Esperanto magical conversion to the editor. [discuss]" under gadgets

sx is a pretty rare combination in english, but if it's doing it everytime the combination occurs on a page or section being edited, that's not good; plus whatever other key combinations trigger a "conversion"

looks like this needs some follow-up, with the tool's developers, & if it can't be fixed, then maybe the tool should be pulled? might be a good idea to cross-check with other wikiprojects that are using it, too.

good catch

Lx 121 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Manju no wa.jpg[edit]

Was claimed as PD-old. JDavid put in "no source/author" template, because file was missing these informations. Uploader afterwards put some photobucket link to the image, which in no way explained why this file is PD-old or anything else (no original source/author), therefore I deleted it. Masur (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

whats the timeline though? from the user's talkpage notice, it looked like the notice & deletion were the same day? Lx 121 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mythological weapons[edit]

Your category has not been created, you need to finish it.samuraiantiqueworld.com (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

i understand this; i do not yet have enough items to make it worth creating. when i have time, i will add more items, then make the page. Lx 121 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Sake gift certificate samurai woodblock print.jpg[edit]

While this image may be "historic", it is not a historic samurai image. The samurai era ended in the 1800s, this image was made way later. "The Taishō period (大正時代 Taishō jidai?, "period of great righteousness"), or Taishō era, is a period in the history of Japan dating from July 30, 1912 to December 25, 1926." What proof do you have when this image was actually made and how do you know it is actually a wood block and not printed by some other method? I put the image in a category called "modern depictions of samurai".samuraiantiqueworld.com (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

if you will examine the scan @ "full resolution" you should be able to see that it is in fact a woodblock print. the item is part of a larger collection of prints. i have seen & handled this item, & created the scans myself. there is also a scan of the reverse side of the paper, which you can find on my user-page, showing the typical bleed-through characteristics of japanese woodblock prints.

the item was purchased from a dealer in japan, info as provided by same. i have no reason to seriously doubt the accuracy of this information, & the style is perfectly appropriate to the period.

there is text on the both sides of the document which, if you wish to translate, it would be helpful.

as regards the word "historic"; we may have different understandings of the usage of this word. in standard english, "historic" does not inherently mean that "the image was created during the period it depicts"; historic can mean simply "old", or "of historical importance".

i.e.: a portrait of murasaki, painted during the edo period would still be considered "historic", even though she lived during the heiian.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


obverse
reverse


      • "the item was purchased from a dealer in Japan, info as provided by same. i have no reason to seriously doubt the accuracy of this information, & the style is perfectly appropriate to the period." Famous last words, I am a dealer in samurai and Japanese antiques and I can assure you that just being a "dealer" in Japanese items does not make some one an authority. Without proof there is no real way to know if this item was made in the 1920s, or 1930s or 1940s. Some ones word means nothing unless they have some kind of evidence. I am not saying that what you were told could not be true but there is not any real proof. Authentic period items should be differentiated from unknown or know non period items. Japanese armor made after the samurai era..even a few years after can be called antique, or vintage Japanese armor, or replica samurai armor but it is dishonest to call it antique samurai armor. Japanese swords made after the samurai era are not samurai swords, they are Samurai style swords, or Japanese swords or nihonto. They may be historic Japanese items..just not historic samurai items, there is a difference.
      • "a portrait of murasaki, painted during the edo period would still be considered "historic", even though she lived during the heiian." Your missing the point, the Edo period is still a samurai era. Any print or drawing created after the samurai era is not an historic samurai print of drawing, it would still be a historic Japanese print or drawing.samuraiantiqueworld.com (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

removing indentation

again, with respect, i think we are misunderstanding each other over an ambiguity of the english language.

the category is "historic prints of samurai", meaning, in the broadest sense: "old prints depicting samurai"

the name, in english, does not necessarily mean "prints of samurai, created during the samurai era".

if you look carefully in this category, you will see many prints that were created during the later meiji, after the end of the samurai as a part of japanese society.

i have no problem with the category "modern depictions of samurai"; but it is problematic, deciding where to draw the line & how to define "modern".

also, if you can find anything that is incorrect about the sake-samurai print, or any useful information in the japanese text printed on the paper, please translate & include it!

Lx 121 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Category:Canned beverages[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Canned beverages 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--Themightyquill (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No insults[edit]

The next time you are insulting me following some kind of agenda you'll find yourself on COM:AN/U. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Katsushika,_by_Takahashi_Shôtei_(version_01)[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Katsushika,_by_Takahashi_Shôtei_(version_01) 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

80.187.107.134 18:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Lx 121. You have new messages at Darwinius's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

You've gotten a name wrong[edit]

Category:Kuroneko Yamato (E-hon, multi-volume series, circa 1808)

Kuroneko Yamato is the name of a delivery company. This series is called "頼豪阿闍梨恠鼠傳" (Raigo Acharya Kaisoden) and there are more images of it here and here. Shii (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

hm, well crap. the info was provided by the (japanese) dealer the books were purchased from (any idea how he got it so wrong?).
i knew about the business named "kuroneko yamato", but my understanding of the root meaning was "black cat of yamato"?
thanks for the links, i'll put "transferring copies of these files (the complete scanset) to wmc" on my "to do" list.
also; can you provide any more info? i am very much interested in japanese art, as you can see User:Lx_121; however my japanese language skills are virtually non-existant, so i am dependent upon the language translation skills of others.
final question: are you an admin on commons? i'm clearly going to have to rename the affected files...
Lx 121 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and not an expert on Japanese art, I was just able to read / look up the kanji on the title page. The idea that the book is called Kuroneko Yamato is very interesting but I can't find any evidence for that either in the book itself or in the info about it supplied on Japanese pages. Feel free to confirm this on a Japan-related Internet forum or something; I don't really have access to good books about Hokusai that would allow me to double check the scarce info online. Shii (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Shii is correct: the title of this book is Raigō Ajari kaisoden (頼豪阿闍梨恠鼠傳), or "Legend of the Monstrous Mouse, High Priest Raigō." There's a Japanese wiki article on the title character, who was the subject of a sizable body of folklore. If you look along the outermost edges of the pages, you can see the abbreviated title of the book (恠鼠傳), although it's been partially cut off by the off-center printing. According to the margins, this is 巻之八 or volume eight (again, this is a bit hard to read because of the off center printing). You can see an image of the same page on the website of Waseda University Library, along with scans of all the other volumes in the series. Note that the numbering of volumes seems to be rather odd: the Waseda page reads "Volumes 1-8," and then shows scans from ten different volumes -- the last three of which are all numbered "volume eight" on the margins, although they're numbered 8, 9, and 10 on the covers. My guess would be that somebody used the original, first-edition woodblocks to reprint the book (rather sloppily; the Waseda editions suffer from the same centering issues as your edition does, and seem to have been printed by rather worn woodblocks), and then reissued it in ten volumes instead of eight. Shenanigans of this type were pretty common in the Edo publishing world.

You'll be happy to know that the illustrations are indeed by Katsushika Hokusai, and the author is Kyokutei Bakin (aka Takizawa Bakin), one of the major literary figures of the late Edo. As I mentioned earlier, the story features High Priest Raigō, a favorite figure in supernatural/ghost/horror fiction (one of the more prominent genres of the Edo period). Despite the title, Raigō largely remains in the background; the plot centers on Minamoto no Yoshitaka (the fictional son of the real Minamoto no Yoshinaka, and his attempts to avenge his father's death. Yoshitaka is aided in his vendetta by the dark magic he learned from Raigō, which allows him to control hordes of spirit-mice. Meanwhile, Yoshitaka has an enemy of his own: Nekoma Mitsuzane, whose older brother was driven to suicide by Yoshitaka's father. Mitsuzane -- whose family name begins with the character meaning "cat" -- controls his own army of spirit animals (no points for guessing what they are).

I have no idea how the bookseller bungled the info so badly -- maybe there was a miscommunication somewhere (as Shii said, Yamato no Kuroneko is the name of a delivery company, so he might have been talking about the means of delivery), or maybe he figured you wouldn't know the difference and was just making stuff up?

Nathaniel Hitch- Location/correct name of pub[edit]

http://www.pubs.com/main_site/pub_details.php?pub_id=30

Sorry. I have only just seen your note. The above link will show you correct name and location

Weglinde (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Neuestes rhein panorama von mainz-cöln 1909.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neuestes rhein panorama von mainz-cöln 1909.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

--Vera (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kachi-Kachi Mountain[edit]

Hi, Lx 121. Kachi-Kachi Mountain. Takabeg (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you please have a look again?[edit]

File:Coberta de la revista Pan..gif. I started a RfD to clear things up. I see no rationale for PD/no sufficient permission. The given license is wrong. Hopefully this can be changed during the process. Thank you for your time, --Polarlys (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:"Apparition_of_the_Spider_Princess"(芳年漫画_天延四年秋妖怪土蜘蛛脳源頼光寝所酒田公時等宿直欲払其妖図),_by_Tsukioka_Yoshitoshi[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:"Apparition_of_the_Spider_Princess"(芳年漫画_天延四年秋妖怪土蜘蛛脳源頼光寝所酒田公時等宿直欲払其妖図),_by_Tsukioka_Yoshitoshi 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

80.187.96.24 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Eisenhower and Daimlers[edit]

Than you for recognizing the brand of car and categorizing it! Eddaido (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Taylorhomerear.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Taylorhomerear.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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!

High Contrast (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The original source information was lost during the transfer. Can you find out a valid source for it? We need one. --High Contrast (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Problem solved. The nps.gov server was down. Is working again. Everything's ok right now. --High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

hey; what happened? the file was moved here from wp/en & i thought everything in order? Lx 121 (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? --High Contrast (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Unidentified moth on glass.underside view, moderately back-lit,image-set.raw photograph01.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pashupatinath_Temple[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Pashupatinath_Temple 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Archaeological sites in Jordan Rift Valley[edit]

Hi Lx 121, You added to this category Category:Archaeological sites in Jordan and Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank. Please read the article en:Jordan Rift Valley and see that the west bank is a small part of the Jordan Rift Valley, and and adding it is a mistake. Also in this category there are no archaeological sites in Jordan. Hanay (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

hello;

respectfully, the jordan rift valley (see wikipedia's article) includes the territory of jordan, isreal & the west bank. given the history of the region, it is reasonable to expect that we will eventually have material for archaeological sites from all 3 countries. therefore it is proper to include all 3 countries (or none of them?) as super-categories.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

by the way the category at present DOES include sites in the west bank. Lx 121 (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hellow Lx 121, I have no argue with you that the jordan rift valley includes territory of jordan. I only mention it because you added this category without adding any subcategory of archaeological sites in Jordan, its look to me strange. About the west bank: This is not a country, this is a political name of an area. Since this category covered a large area in Israel and Jordan, and the part of the west bank is very small in this category, I thought it will confuse people who is looking for it.
By the way, this conversation start in your page, why didn't you answer me there as it should be? Hanay (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

HotCat[edit]

Hi. Were you aware that you can add/remove more than one category at a time using hotcat? Just either click the (++) button, or edit another category while the first category box is still open. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Compound_foods_containing_cheese[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Compound_foods_containing_cheese 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Category:ISO 8601[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:ISO 8601 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--Mitch Ames (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Zen_buddists[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Zen_buddists 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)[edit]

Hi Lx 121,

There was an ec at the udr and fyi iautma.

(I am using too many acronyms) if you don't know that last one ;)

I was trying to keep the two comments about 'dishonest' together, if you want to, please feel free to re-arrange your comment above mine as you hit save first ! on the other hand, I think you didn't indent and I did, so it's easy for you to leave it rather than indent, yes ? ;) whatever you like is cool with me. Penyulap 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

hi back :)
i'm sorry, i didn't even see the edit conflict until after the fact. i've since commented your comments, & i'm fine with the arrangement (unless i've missed something?)
my it will be nice, when the mediawiki people finally fix that problem! ^__^ (yeah, right)
Lx 121 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

Commons File mover.svg

Hi Lx 121, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | +/−

If a filename in a local project conflicts with a filename at Commons, the file in the local project should be renamed. Renaming it at Commons would mean changing it in 500+ projects instead of just one.
--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

hello & thank-you. i do understand what you are saying, however in this case the commons file was brand new, the wp/en file was old, & the request to fix it @ wp/en was met unsympathetically...  :/ Lx 121 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
also, it was a rather generic name "Postop.jpg". the rename was at least a kind of improvement "Laser tattoo-removal 1st session - recovery.jpg

" Lx 121 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading names can be renamed into accurate ones, but not because the local filename conflicts with a filename at Commons (would mean changing it in 500+ projects instead of just one).--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Humans_by_age[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Humans_by_age 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

JesseW (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Human_females_by_age[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Human_females_by_age 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

JesseW (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wesnoth & Myst user galleries -- are awesome![edit]

I just wanted to thank you for the Wesnoth and Myst-related galleries you put together as user subpages. Those are some really really beautiful images, and it's great to see them all on one page like that. Thanks! JesseW (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

hello; thank-you, i'm sorry that it has taken me so long to reply. i'm not good @ keeping up correspondence. (& thank you for the peace-gesture, as well.) i did those ages ago, & haven't thought of them in a long time. the idea was to compile files that might be of interest/use to people who were creating content for those games (wesnoth & uru are both open-source). i always meant to get back to those & do more with them... never got around to it
Lx 121 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Food_by_shape[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Food_by_shape 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

humans by chronological age[edit]

Your welcome. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:People by name, by gender[edit]

Hello. Was replaced by category:people by gender by name. People by name is a flat list, please see last discussion in the category people by name talk. Kind regards.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 03:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Photographs taken on date Category[edit]

Hi - is there any difference between Category:date and Category:Photographs taken on date, or is it unnecessary duplication? In answer to your query, I can add the functionality to my template if required. If I do, I'll make it so that it doesn't put it in Category:date, per Com:overcat, as a file shouldn't be both in a category and its parent.  An optimist on the run! 18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

hello (& sorry abt the delayed responding; i'm terrible @ keeping up with "correspondence"). to answer your question, yes i think it is important to differentiate as "media type, by date".
that way, we can cross-index properly into "files by media type", AND we avoid date-ambiguity by labelling it as "photographs taken on (date)".
if/when enough people @ commons finally get serious about chronological organization of the database, a single dated category could have photos, videos, assorted "created" works, subcats for events on that day, by region, etc.; "overcategorization" isn't an issue in that sense, not with 20 million files, & thousands of new uploads-per-day. though i do agree with you that it is redundant to list a photo in both the "basic" date category, & the "taken on xxxx-xx-xx" cat. but keeping a subcat for "all photos taken on (x-date)" would be useful for future users; aside from getting a "snapshot of the world", on a given day, photographic images (including "live-action" video; as opposed to animation) contain vast amounts of secondary information which can be "mined", & mined more easily if it's better-organized. separating photographic from non-photographic images is helpful in doing this. and, unfortunately, categories are the best that mediawiki can do in terms of organization, at present.
i've been spending a fair amount of my editing-time on organizing this, & to my thinking, the data structure should be something like this:
the category "photographs taken on xxxx-xx-xx", as a sub-cat of both category:"xxxx-xx-xx(date in iso format)" and category"(month) (year) photographs".
the date category gets integrated into the schema automatically via the YMDcat template
& category:"(month) (year) photographs" fits into category:"(month) (year)" and category:"(year) photographs".
Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. I'll see what I can do with my template.  An optimist on the run! 10:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


File:Joseph F. Smith family.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Joseph F. Smith family.png 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 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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


It's doesn't matter what year it was taken, what matters is when the person who took the image died or when it was published. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph F. Smith family.png/2 for an explanation.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Humans by stage of development[edit]

Hi. "Stage of development" comes quite overlapping with "Age" and it seems to me that this category and its subs can be conflated with People by age. Is it OK? Thanks. Orrlingtalk 18:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

hello; i'm not quite sure if i understand your question?

the present arrangement of these categories is untidy, but for humans by age, there are 2 clear & distinct sub-topics here:

i) humans by chronological age

ii) humans by stage of development

"people by age" is an unfortunately AMBIGUOUS term, & does not clearly indicate which sense of age-measurement is intended. if you are intending to combine & remove redundant categories, "people by age" is probably the one that should go.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I might understand your meaning here, but isn't "age" commonly a sub-entry of "state of development" rather than vice-versa.? Orrlingtalk 13:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
NO, there is no "inherent heirarchy" of this, in english; that's the problem. it could be either/both/neither. i intend no rudeness here, but is english not your "first" language? Lx 121 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at Maryse Selit deletion discussions[edit]

In light of the findings here, perhaps you'd care to withdraw your sockpuppetry accusations against me? Just a thought. Cheers. 67.230.140.124 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

i apologize to users, NOT numbers.
especially not anonymous-ip numbers who demonstrate FAR more knowledge of commons' procedures, than their contrib-history would suggest was at all reasonable... [2]
Lx 121 (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. 67.230.148.118 04:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Deceased_persons_by_name[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Deceased_persons_by_name 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

89.71.173.232 17:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Living_persons_by_name[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Living_persons_by_name 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

89.71.173.232 17:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

why not four digit years for 33-09-12 etc[edit]

Why is category 33-09-12 not 0033-09-12? Likewise 0029-11-24?

Surely it would make sense to use four digit years, for consistency with other similar categories, and compliance with ISO 8601 (assuming that we mutually agree to do it, per clause 4.1.2.1)? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that we currently have 29-11-24 being a subcategory of Days by day, which is a subcat of ISO 8601 - but how can 29-11-24 be subcat of ISO 8601, when ISO 8601 explicitly says years are at least four digits? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • because the universe doesn't run from 0000 to 9999 & then reset? years can actually use less or more than 4 digits.

because 33 A.D. DOESN'T NEED & DOESN'T HAVE zeros in front of it.

because ALL year cats @ wmc, wp, etc., DON'T put "empty zeros" in front of the year number.

AND

because we have the days by date cats INTEGRATED into the category schema, for which we even have templates; all of which, you COMPLETELY IGNORED, in making your new, improved, UNintegrated replacement date cats.

& btw, the rules on wmc may be different from those @ wp, but "pointy" editing can still get you in trouble, & DISRUPTIVE editing most certainly can.

i am trying very hard to maintain an agf here, but the main thing that you have demonstrated with these edits, is that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW CATEGORIZATION WORKS @ commons.


respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, "no leading zeros in years in category names" seems straightforward. But how is it that Category:29-11-24 can be subcategory (via Category:Days by day) of Category:ISO 8601 when 29-11-24 does not comply with ISO 8601? Which bullet point(s) of Help:Category#Category_structure_in_Wikimedia_Commons apply here? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
... for which we even have templates; all of which, you COMPLETELY IGNORED ...
Which templates, exactly? If you're referring to {{YMDcat}} I didn't ignore it, I just couldn't find any documentation for it. Perhaps if there were some documentation, people might be more inclined to use it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
... YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW CATEGORIZATION WORKS @ commons.
That may well be the case, but I am trying to learn. Your further input at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:ISO 8601 might help. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Lx 121. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked you until you decide you are ready to contribute constructively to Commons', and in a manner which is not rude/dickish to others. The reason got cut off in the log, so here's the whole reason: "Disruptive editing, unilaterally ignoring several years' worth of civility warnings, recent behavior indicates little interest in changing conduct. Blocked until ready to contribute constructively". -FASTILY 19:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "permanent block by user:Fastily. there is currently a discussion underway @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=125220896#Lx_121 . Fastily (with whom I have had previous, extended disagreements, mostly regarding their deletion activities, without violating commons policy) took part & very strongly "took sides" in the discussion, which is unresolved & ongoing. Fastily instead chose to take this action on their own, without even mentioning it in the discussion @ anu i stand corrected on this point; the user did apparently post a notice within a few mins of blocking me; the link the user included (in their rationale) to the block discussion is "historic". I have now been blocked "infinitely", by this user, the reason given: "Disruptive editing" (without citing any concrete examples (as requested) to support the claim). I contest this claim & am now unable to even respond further in my own "case". I request removal of this block & that the admin be sanctioned for, at the very least, premature, unilateral action by a "non-neutral participant" in a case currently under discussion. In the event of my "acquittal", I reserve the right to seek further sanction of the user's actions here, as "unjustified". I will also seek to have the block record "expurgated" (i.e.: annotated as unjustified unilateral action) Lx 121 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
addendum: now it's working (template reason); no idea what "fixed" it... Lx 121 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "I don't see a change of behaviour here. Only a lack of selfreflection. Blaming someone else for your own wrongdoing doesn't belong here at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

really; & you feel that an "infinite block", unilaterally imposed by one admin, in xcase case stuill under discussion & in which consensus has NOT been reached, & in which you yourself have advocated blocking, & in which i am no longer able to participate, due to this block is fair & reasonable & due process? Lx 121 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: i did include a "reason given" in completing the template. it seems to be incapable of dealing with something in the text(?), so i am re-adding it here:

"unblock|Unilateral, permanent block by user:Fastily. there is currently a discussion underway @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=125220896#Lx_121 . Fastily (with whom I have had previous, extended disagreements, mostly regarding their deletion activities, without violating commons policy) took part & very strongly "took sides" in the discussion, which is unresolved & ongoing. Fastily instead chose to take this action on their own, without even mentioning it in the discussion @ anu i stand corrected on this point; the user did apparently post a notice within a few mins of blocking me; the link the user included (in their rationale) to the block discussion is "historic". I have now been blocked "infinitely", by this user, the reason given: "Disruptive editing" (without citing any concrete examples (as requested) to support the claim). I contest this claim & am now unable to even respond further in my own "case". I request removal of this block & that the admin be sanctioned for, at the very least, premature, unilateral action by a "non-neutral participant" in a case currently under discussion. In the event of my "acquittal", I reserve the right to seek further sanction of the user's actions here, as "unjustified". I will also seek to have the block record "expurgated" (i.e.: annotated as unjustified unilateral action) Lx 121 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

addendum: now it's working (template reason); no idea what "fixed" it... Lx 121 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I fixed it in this edit --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
well thank-you :) may i politely suggest that this part of the template doc should be changed, because it's not showing the proper useage: "To request unblocking, add {{unblock|reason ~~~~}} to your user talk page." https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Unblock/doc
Lx 121 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
IMHO not necessary. What was breaking the template was the = sign in your unblock reason. When parsing parameters the sofware looks for the first occurence of an = and then takes the string in front of it as the parameter name. This can be fixed by expressly naming the parameter as Lewis did. This is not a template bug but rather inherent to how MediaWiki's template system works. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
IMO it would be a little easier if the template documentation told users to name the parameter so cases like this don't happen, I don't think naming the parameter could cause any problems. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I certainly will not revert it I just do not see the need to do it myself. But feel free to make the change. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


since a search of commons' extensive policy pages has, surprisingly yielded nothing on the appropriate next stage in block-appeals process (which astonishes me, considering the number of rules we have accumulated there... ). there doesn't seem to be any rule about re=-requests one way or the other, so i am re-requesting an unbvlock, at least pending the conclusion of my "case" @ anu (i.e.; discussion & consensus).

i also request that an UNINVOLVED admin make this decision.


Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "re-requesting unblock. unilateral "infinite" block was imposed by user fastily, while my case @ anu is still under discussion, & consensus has NOT been reached. i am now unable to participate in my "trial", due to the block. i contend that this action was unjustified & i wish to defend my "case" in the anu discussion. my previous unblock request was declined by an admin involved in the anu discussion (supporting a block). i request that an uninvolved admin review my request. Lx 121 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)"
Unblock reason: "Done, by russavia. Moving forward, remember to stay mellow in discussions, especially if you find yourself in disagreement with others. -FASTILY 01:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)"

This template should be archived normally.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | हिन्दी | magyar | македонски | Plattdüütsch | português | русский | +/−


Supplemental information; AFTER blocking me "infinitely", 2 of the involved (pro-block) admins also shut down my undeletion request, here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=125241354&oldid=125238361

in doing so they repeated the same ERRONEOUS arguement used by the closing admin (which was the point of the discussion that lead to my anu-accusations)

i.e.: that 'the LA sheriff's dep't website's "policy guide" prohibits this'.

the file in question was a mugshot, taken by the LA sheriff's dep't.

the file was licensed with this template:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-CAGov

which is backed up by this @ wp/en

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-CAGov

NOW, either the templates are wrong, or the law has changed, OR the decision made by the original closing admin, AND by the 2 admins who closed my udel, after i was unable to participate in it any further, was WRONG.

(court decisions supersede local departmental "policy guides")

i have stated all of the above facts repeatedly, in the original DR, in the udel, & in explaining my frustration @ the anu.

& was repeatedly ignored; by the closing admin, by my blocker, & by his supporters in closing my udel.

& it is NOT a "personal attack" to point (all of) that out...

Lx 121 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Lx 121, I will look at this unblock request for you, and will also address the undeletion request for this file. What I need to see from you is a commitment to in future simply look at issues from the angle of copyright, scope, etc without making things personal as you actually did in the DR. Can you commit to this? russavia (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
i would like some clarification on what is meant by "making it personal", because if one is not allowed to criticize another user's (or an admin's) work & actions ON THE WIKIPROJECT, then the community process is a fail, & the whole project will follow. lack of adequate peer-review & criticism is fatal in such endeavours. if we cannot analyse the quality of the work, work-process, & workers, then we're all just wasting our time here, playing "club", & i have better things to do. but otherwise; subject to a reasonable definition of terms, yes, that is acceptable. thank-you. Lx 121 (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Calling people deranged is definitely personal. Assume good faith is what is being asked of you. If you can recognise that your comments in that DR were out-of-line, and commit yourself to simply addressing the issues that matter (such as copyright, scope, etc) in future DR's and disregarding alleged motives, etc, I'd be happy to unblock you right now. I do hope that your response will be very short and directly on point of what has just been been mentioned to you. russavia (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
hello; those terms are acceptable to me & thank-you. Lx 121 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
In that case I will unblock you. russavia (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Question of process, COI, etc. in Lx 121 block and unblock[edit]

The following begins a short, focused discussion, in one place, regarding the block and unblock process applied here, which I believe ignored editor input (4 concurring editors) at the Admin noticeboard location. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Query—why was action taken and this Admin noticeboard discussion not joined[edit]

…in the steps taken to block (and review of unblocking) Lx 121? Here are the closing entries from the Administrators' noticeboard stream, found at end of this section [3], copied as a quotation here, for your convenience:

  • As I was mentioned above: I have nearly forgotten User Lx121. We had problems some years ago with impo out-of-scope images (compare this or that). Impo User Lx121 sticked up for let's say "porn" images which are impo violating Commons' principles and used an aggressive language towards persons not sharing his opinion. However, if I wrote "acidulous comments directed @ other users" where is the proof (diff links examples) and why wasn't I noticed about that (no chance for self-reflection or apology)? --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Yikrazuul, if accusations are made, a series of "diff links examples" must appear, for the accused to respond to, and for independent reviewers to adjudicate the matter. But note, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, see below. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose disciplinary action, block or ban, based on case made in this thread. I do not have time to fully immerse myself in this issue, but here is an outsider's preliminary review: I find Lx 121's style of communication annoying, as, it seems, do many commenting above. However, I feel the same about ee cummings' poetry, and would not deny him access (were he still with us), or others access to him. The question must be, what specific communication or communications from Lx 121 amount to a significant degree of editor disrespect, such that a block or ban is justified? If his "i do not know if this person is a 'paid' PR-hack, or just a deranged fan" is as bad as the communications get, I cannot support anything more than a firm, friendly encouragement to be more careful in self-editing before posting. (There are editors and admins with patterns of disrespect far more egregious at WP; this example is child's play.) If this is a serious effort to discipline, best to follow him and firmly explain and encourage how particular comments will be received, and in so doing, accumulate a recent, ongoing, sufficient, and documented series of linked examples to lay out in a formal disciplinary case here. Bottom line, this accusation and call for strong punishment, as it stands, is insufficiently substantiated and/or organized in presentation, and so comes across as a "trust me, he's bad" approach (alternatively, catering cliquishly to those already knowing the matter, or inviting entry of those without time pressures willing to meander about it on their own). Hence, strongly oppose, at present. But for goodness sake, Lx 121, grow up. We write for others, not for our own consumption. You are generating fare that only you yourself can stomach. A chef with no following is no chef at all. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Leprof 7272; but have to agree with him. This case reminds me of Penyulap. One difference is Lx 121's comments looks poetic, well formatted and eye catching even tough lengthy and boring. And it is a bad practice an involved admin jump in to take punitive actions, even if the action can be well justifiable. I can understand their enthusiasm; but remember, we have 100+ active admins. It is wise to wait till an uninvolved one find time to review the case and take a decision unless there is an emergency. Jee 03:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't understand the severity of the block here. We have put up with aggressive people and rarely been that far for a first block. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
+1 per "As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behavior." and (though a link was given to one example of disruptive comments) "The rationale should preferably use links to relevant policies to help the blocked user understand why they have been blocked. Where appropriate, diffs or permanent links documenting the reason for the block are also helpful.". This sysop action does not appear to comply with Blocking policy. I note that Russavia is reviewing the reasons behind this block with the blockee, hopefully that may reach a positive outcome and this indef block can be amended or lifted based on a clearer rationale than that given at the outset. -- (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why was all of this—views of four concurring editors, including substantial argument and citation of WP policy—seemingly passed over, with the discourse moving instead to this User's Talk page? RSVP [here] at Lx 121's talk page, please... Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose that[edit]

…four other editors made clear that there was NOT a consensus to block Lx as was ultimately done, that FASTILY and Natuur12 should have recused themselves from acting on the basis of having too strong of personal feelings on the matter—as evidenced in the earlier discussion at the noticeboard, and ultimately evidenced in the action taken before sufficient time was given to allow other editors to become aware of the action at the noticeboard and respond to it. Thankfully, the Admin finally responding to the unblock request took a reasonable tack. However, I think the process was shameful, and would note that however annoying this user's communications might be, the efforts he has undertaken (and most sides of positions taken) have been positive on behalf of the quality of the Commons operation. I have spoken frankly to him regarding his need to show added maturity both in form and content of his communications; but this does not excuse those participating in this rushed maneuver to discipline from its misuse of ideas of "consensus" here, instead ganging up to quickly impose a block or ban before broad discussion of the harsh action could come to fruition. No bravo, bravi for the procedure/due process here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272: I will respond on your talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Historical_reenactments[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Historical_reenactments 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!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

   FDMS  4    15:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)