User talk:MaLik
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. More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimediacommons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. 


(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) 
Contents
 1 Categories
 2 Category:Structure diagrams
 3 Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts, graphs by theme?
 4 The three previous discussions
 5 More categories for discussion
 6 Category:Organizational chart
 7 Category:Statistical charts and diagrams
 8 Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme
 9 Changing the Category:Diagrams
 10 final stroke
 11 Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme
Categories[edit]
RV at Category:Criminal justice diagrams
You reverted my edit at Category:Criminal justice diagrams, but Category:Criminal justice diagrams are definitely no statistics diagrams they are statistics. Bar charts, Gantt charts, Histograms, Pie charts, Radar charts, Regression analysis plots, Venn diagrams are special statistics diagrams.MaLik 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 I see that you are not a native English speaker. This may be the cause of the problem. Those charts are definitely statistical charts and diagrams.
 But we can use both categories if it helps people find stuff in the commons. Including people who are not native English speakers. I added back the other category too.
 Also, for most native English speakers, Category:Diagrams by theme makes more sense than Category:Diagrams in disciplines.
 See Category:Maps and Category:Maps by theme.
 I may change the name to Category:Diagrams by theme. Timeshifter 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 I'm not sure you get my point. The most pics in this cat are of the type statistical charts and diagrams, but that's not the point. statistical charts and diagrams sounds like special diagrams like the other one's in this cat. And the pics in Criminal justice diagrams are statistics and not special statistical diagrams. And you're right Diagrams by theme sounds betterMaLik 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Hmmm. Category:Statistical charts and diagrams is also on wikipedia at wikipedia:Category:Statistical charts and diagrams. It looks like it has subcategories by type of chart or diagram. Not by theme.
I refactored this discussion by adding in your original comment from my talk page.
I see these related categories:
I don't yet see
Category:Charts has various subcategories specific to charts. Category:Graphs has subcategories specific to graphs. Category:Diagrams has everything else.
So maybe an overall "by theme" category might be
I am trying to make the categorization more intuitive for the average reader. The above category could be a subcategory of
This avoids duplication of "by theme" categories. Timeshifter 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 I think that's a good idea cause several diagrams are called in other languages charts or graphs or the other way round and Diagrams, Charts and Graphs are very similar.MaLik 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 Ok. I will change Category:Diagrams in disciplines to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme in all the relevant categories. Timeshifter 12:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Should now Statistical charts and diagrams also be listed at Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme?MaLik 13:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 I removed the themed subcategories from Category:Statistical charts and diagrams, and so it is back to being a category by kind. So it does not need to be a subcategory of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme. Timeshifter 13:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Arg you are right. I confused it a bit...MaLik 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 Later note. In case others are reading this later they may want to know that we ended up calling the category
 Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme Timeshifter 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:Structure diagrams[edit]
And how use native speaker this? In German are "Strukturdiagramme" a part of UML and I think it's a good possibility to subcategorize the diagrams cat (clearness). That's also the reason why I categorize some technical diagrams in Category:Technical diagrams. In my opinion the categories should be a tree and not such flat.MaLik 13:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 It may be good to subcategorize the diagrams category, but "structure diagrams" just does not make sense. I don't ever remember hearing of "structure diagrams" before in English. Timeshifter 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 Ok I thought in German... In German abstract (organisation, object connection) and real (constructions, bodies etc "Aufbau") structure will be shown in structure diagrams...MaLik 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts, graphs by theme?[edit]
You categorized Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme in the cat Drawings. Is the nameing of the cat then right? In my opinion the category should named Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts, graphs by theme.MaLik 12:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 I agree. Or we could change Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme to Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts by theme. Charts and graphs are fairly interchangeable. Timeshifter 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 hmm no, I think it's better to call all the basis catsMaLik 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have changed my mind. I looked up "diagram" in a big paper dictionary, and in online dictionaries. See:
Drawings are considered to be diagrams. In the commons one see that Category:Drawings is a subcategory of Category:Diagrams.
So I think we should leave the category name, Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme, the way it is now. Otherwise the category name gets longer and longer. Timeshifter 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 Ok that's a good point, but charts and graphs are also diagrams... Maybe we should call it Diagrams by theme. MaLik 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 Some definitions of diagrams include charts and graphs, and some don't. So it is clearer if we include them in the title of the category. Timeshifter 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 OKMaLik 08:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 Some definitions of diagrams include charts and graphs, and some don't. So it is clearer if we include them in the title of the category. Timeshifter 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The three previous discussions[edit]
Hi, I have a question about the three previous discussions? Did you also encounter the fenomenon, that you started asking user:Timeshifter a question, and then he copied both question and answer to your talk page? I just think it is very disturbing? I noticed at the previous three talk items they all started with your question, and then Timeshifter answers. Very disturbing. I will take a look at the history page to see if this really happened here.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 I just noticed. This one edit made it rather complicated here. Thanks and good luck.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 Mdd. Please stop canvassing people and poisoning the well. Timeshifter (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 @Timeshifter. I really think you should adress such notes to me personally.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 Marcel Douwe Dekker. You removed this comment of mine below from this talk page before adding your second comment here. Then you later put back my comment in the wrong order. This is a violation of w:WP:TALK and you can be reported to w:WP:ANI and the Commons administrator notice boards for this. Timeshifter (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)



 Mdd. Please stop canvassing people and poisoning the well. Timeshifter (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)



 Many people have been reported for canvassing also, if they keep it up after being warned. The correct thing to do is to politely invite someone to the discussion: Category talk:Diagrams.

 MDD. You wrote: "I just noticed. This one edit made it rather complicated here. Thanks and good luck."

 MaLik's comment remains on my talk page. See:
 User talk:Timeshifter#RV at Category:Criminal justice diagrams

 It is common to combine talk page comments into single threads. Usually for ease of reading. Sometimes, as in your case, Marcel Douwe Dekker, it is done to move offensive comments off of talk pages and back on to the offender's talk page. This is allowed by w:WP:TALK, and many people do it. People are allowed to remove anything from their talk pages. Timeshifter (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 @ Again Timeshifter. I think you are out of line here, twince. First. If you want to accuse me of something this is not the page to do so. The situation here is simple. I asked MaLik a question. I stated that I will sort something out and then return to him. So second, it seems to me you are just intruding here.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)




 You were discussing me here in a negative way. This was soon after I mentioned MaLik's comments at Category talk:Diagrams. This was while you (MDD) and I were discussing things at Category talk:Diagrams. I happen to have this talk page watchlisted since I have had previous discussions here. Here is where you questioned my actions, and so I explained my actions here. Timeshifter (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


I had no problem with this procedure. I think it's commons special and it make sense in my opinion, because many user don't look at their watch page (me to partly) in commons and so don't see the answers.MaLik (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 Thanks. I just explained on Timeshifters talk page (which he moved to my talk page) that I hadn't encountered his "email on Wikipedia" communication yet. But I am getting used to it a little. Maybe it is only my problem. Recently on a cybernetic forum at first I couldn't reconstruct the conversation either, maybe I am just too old for it.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 One last question. Could you explain to me my last question here one more time.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
More categories for discussion[edit]
Please see:
 Category talk:Diagrams#Categories for discussion. Diagrams, charts, graphs Timeshifter (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Category:Organizational chart[edit]
Hi, I proposed to rename this category you created to "Category:Organizational charts", See Category talk:Organizational chart. I will wait a few days for you to respond, before continuing there. Thanks.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Category:Statistical charts and diagrams[edit]
Hi, I proposed to rename the "Category:Statistical charts and diagrams" to "Category:Statistical charts", see Category talk:Statistical charts and diagrams. Could you take a look, and respond. Thanks.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme[edit]
Hi, I made a final proposal to clear the Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme in three days, see here. I will notify all people who contributed to this discussion. If you have any objections please contribute to the final discussion.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing the Category:Diagrams[edit]
Dear MaLik, I have withdrawn my approval not to edit the category diagram. Now I am prepared to discuss this again with you, tonight. But untill then I have explained every move I made on the talk:Category:diagram page, which is the normal way to go.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 On second though: I have restored the lay out to last edit by you as requested and will wait for your response tonight.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
final stroke[edit]
Hi Timeshifter, is it somehow possible to delete the attacks at Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme corporately with MDD? He asked me at Category_talk:Diagrams and I think there should be a final stroke at sometimeMaLik (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 There were no personal attacks by me there. Please see w:WP:TALK and w:WP:NPA. The issue under discussion has already been resolved for me. I am happy with Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme#Possible solution. I haven't commented there in days, and I don't want to waste any more time there. Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme is now empty and can be deleted. I am ignoring MDD for the most part, and do not intend to work with him if at all possible. I will participate at Category talk:Diagrams only when absolutely necessary. I think you are handling things fine there. Timeshifter (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 If I am remembering correctly w:WP:TALK and w:WP:NPA prefer that we strike through comments with a line if we have changed our mind, or if we want to take back a comment. This way the thread is still understandable. But the Commons does not have that editing tool in the toolbar. So if MDD wants to express a change he can just add another comment and another timestamp. But I think MDD was more interested in removing my comments rather than his. If he wants to add more comments of his own, then there is nothing stopping him. But he needs to use new timestamps with the new comments. Otherwise the thread will not make sense. Personally, I don't think it is worth spending time on. But it is his time to spend. Timeshifter (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)



 I now see that the
strikethroughbutton (<s></s>) is below the editing window. It is above the editing window on Wikipedia. So if MDD wants to strike through some of his comments he can. He can't do that to my comments without my permission. There is no need for any of this though, in my opinion, since discussion seems to have ended. Timeshifter (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 I now see that the

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme[edit]
 This discussion started on talk:Diagrams#Stop the flaming, and is copied here by User:Mdd
Hi MaLik. I removed the flaming in the Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme, which Timeshifter just referted. Now I would like these flaming removed there also. I have made up my mind about this. Most of the Flaming can be considered personal attacks and I will not accept any of this any more in the future. I will remove it right away. But in the Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme I would like it removed also, for a good reason: If it is removed, as I did, there is a much better impression left of the actual arguments. If you don't respond in thee days I will contuinu myself. Thanks.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 Is it not possible to delete the comments corporately? I will ask him what conditions, he had for such a clean up.MaLik (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 Thanks. I want to give it a try. My removal was a first step, and Timeshifter can correct it if he wants... and if we don't agree, we could go round again. In my opinion in the reduced version the main arguments are still there, and the discussion is more easy to read (for me).  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 Sorry, Timeshifter wants the w:WP:TALK and w:WP:NPA rules will be followed at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme (see User_talk:MaLik#final_stroke) and I think he has the rules behind him. I don't know what other possibilities are there, maybe you should talk to an admin about that but an edit war is no possible solution, because you will almost surely be locked.MaLik (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)




 Hi, MaLik I copied my latest request and your response here because it has little to do with Category talk:Diagrams. I will proceed...  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)





 Hi, I read the result of your attempt to negotiate. Thanks for given it a try. As a result I made up my mind and added a supplementairy command/comment at the end of the discussion myself so people can directly read that discussion without the flaming.  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)





 P.S. I hope we can leave it with that and return to improving Wikicommons together.

