User talk:Kai3952/Archive 5

File:Straight highway near Chiayang High School on Aofeng Hill.jpg

File:Straight highway near Chiayang High School on Aofeng Hill.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Taiwanese_language vs Category:Taiwanese Hokkien

Besides , there are many images of Chinese characters under Category:Taiwanese_language. Should them be moved to Category:Taiwanese Hokkien? --Cangjie6 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Kai3952 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Taiwan_Taroko5.jpg

Why have you removed Category:Liwu River? The gray area at the bottom of the picture is the Liwu River.

Why have you removed Category:Taroko National Park? According to this map the place is in the national park. --TheRunnerUp (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Vocalists_from_Taiwan_by_gender

Vocalists from Taiwan by gender 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

Adelfrank (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

請不要直接回退他人的編輯

首先很感謝你對於wikimedia上各種內容的關注，我了解你也是希望使這些內容更健全完善，但容我表達我的意見，請不要依造自己主觀的想法，直接回退他人的編輯，如果你認為這些分類有不恰當之處，可以先在我的討論區，就編輯而論，如果有共識我們可以再更改。例如最近你就回退了我數個編輯，包括將數張照片移出Category:Townhouses in Taiwan，以及將Category:Tiles in Taiwan‬、Category:Murals in Taiwan、‪Category:Religious paintings in Taiwan、‪Category:Windows in Taiwan‬、Category:Sculptures of lions in Taiwan等分類移出Category:Building ornaments in Taiwan。確實我在之前不太熟悉分類樹，也謝謝你的提醒，但我認為這幾次的回退，有些並不太洽當。首先就Building ornaments來談，Cambridge English Dictionary中對ornaments的定義是「an object that is beautiful rather than useful」，而英文維基Ornament (art)的定義是「Architectural ornament can be carved from stone, wood or precious metals, formed with plaster or clay, or painted or impressed onto a surface as applied ornament; in other applied arts the main material of the object, or a different one such as paint or vitreous enamel may be used.」、「Ornament implies that the ornamented object has a function that an unornamented equivalent might also fulfill. Where the object has no such function, but exists only to be a work of art such as a sculpture or painting, the term is less likely to be used」，因此我認為Tiles理應是一種建築裝飾，例如Category:Tiles_in_Iraq也有將Tiles列入建築裝飾。此外關於Religious paintings與Murals，我想這個分類可能也表達的不夠清楚，我想到的是例如潘麗水、陳玉峰這樣傳統彩繪匠師的作品，通常會繪製在寺廟或民居的壁面、棟架、樑枋等，與建築為一體，像是Media:瓦硐武聖廟 (16)八仙彩繪.jpg這樣，此外李乾朗的《台灣古建築圖解事典》也有將彩繪列入建築裝飾中，或者我們可以更進一步將Religious murals in Taiwan‎分為建築裝飾，是更為恰當的。而Windows的部分，確實可能有爭議，因為其中也包含純機能性的窗戶，但也有裝飾性的窗戶，或許可討論出更細的分類。而在Sculptures of lions的部分，例如Media:土庫順天宮木雕.JPG與Media:DSC00388 (16232958260).jpg，台灣的傳統建築時常將獅子的形象作為建築裝飾物，並不是單獨雕塑，但這分類也包含了一些單獨的雕塑，同樣或許也能有更細的分類。另外就是關於之前Category:Townhouses的問題，由於你尚未回覆我的問題，因此這裡再次提出。你認為分類中的圖片必須要有顯示出一整排，才適用此分類，然而此分類的內容是「Townhouses」這種建築「類型」，並不是「一整排的風景」，而理應包含Townhouses的獨照與特寫，例如Category:Townhouses便是如此，否則便會有許多此建築類型被排除，反而會造成此分類的缺失。有些圖片例如Media:Dihua_Street_MiNe-5DII_103-2696UG_(8410546868).jpg很明顯也確實是街屋建築，也有顯示出連棟樣貌，卻不適用此分類，然而像Media:Townhouses_in_downtown_Hsinchu_01.jpg已是獨棟街屋，卻仍適用，實在令人費解。我了解你是希望能讓wikimedia更完善，而我也是希望能歸納整理台灣建築的相關影像，整理台灣建築的文化價值與特色，這過程中是花費許多心力參照文獻並整理圖片，因此希望你未來發現有問題要回退時，可以先進行討論，了解問題並得到共識後，再行處理，謝謝。--地下高雄 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Flickr files uploaded by Tbatb

Hi! Why are you making categories like that? Are you Tbatb? --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: Before I answer, tell me what you mean by “Are you Tbatb?”--Kai3952 (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean if User:Tbatb is your account. As in if you have 2 accounts. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

So what's your point?--Kai3952 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I ask why you put other users in user galleries categories? --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't beat about the bush. Tell me exactly what you think about my categorizing work.--Kai3952 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not like to jump to conclusions when I do not have all the info I need.

Categorizing by hand takes a lot of time and I could probably have done most of the work in 1-2 hrs with my bot. Normally we let users decide if they want their files categorized and how. So I was not going to offer to help you unless I know you made sure the user wanted the files to be categorized or you had another good reason to do it.

And here is what I think: I think you are unfriendly so I'm not going to spend my time trying to help you. --MGA73 (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

See the diff here, I explained my edits on Tbatb's talk page but he did not respond.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

關於金門

金門縣是否算是「臺灣」的一部份恐有爭議，應此才把「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Kinmen‎ 」從「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan」的分類分出來。（馬祖地區也一樣）就算現在「省」實質上廢除了，金門、馬祖也是直屬於中華民國而非臺灣。金門、馬祖跟澎湖不一樣，澎湖算是臺灣的附屬島嶼之一，但金馬可不是。--祥龍 (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

我找你說的理由很簡單，因為我看編輯歷史是你去修改分類的。另外關於金門的認同問題，可以看看臺灣吧製作的影片。如果你看了之後還是認為金門的認同問題在維基共享資源是不用理會的問題，那這議題就到此打住吧。而既然有共識的話就照那個共識去做吧，我不想浪費時間去討論。--祥龍 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I issued a warning for en:WP:CIR violation on your talkpage.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

如果不是看到編輯歷史是你去改分類的話，我根本不會到你的討論頁留言。我什麼時候有跟你說要你把「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan移動到Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China」了？我什麼時候有做類似的行動了？我是建立Category:Historic Buildings of the Republic of China，然後把金門跟馬祖及臺灣都放到這個分類底下。很好奇你到底是怎麼會以為我是要你把「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan移動到Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China」？我過去沒有，將來也沒有這種打算。

我放這影片只是希望你了解為何我會有要把金門跟臺灣區分開來的想法，並沒有要求你照我的意思做的意思。我也已經退一步說如果你還是覺得你原先的做法沒有問題，那你就照著做，不用再繼續討論下去，因為我不覺得我有辦法說服你。上次關於「Interior」的討論也是，我明明也是是著跟你解釋，可是你一直不接受，只會叫我去討論，後來才自己發現自己搞錯了。基於上次的經驗跟這次的經驗我知道了，不管我跟你提多少理由跟解釋對你都是沒有意義的，你只對於所謂的「共識」有反應。

非常抱歉，看來我打從一開始就不該來找你討論，應該直接去社群或其他地方提起討論，因為我直接跟你對話所提的意見跟反應都是沒有意義的。請不用再到我的討論頁回覆，很抱歉浪費你的時間。--祥龍 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

關於zh:臺灣歷史建築，我個人看過之後，已經將條目修改為zh:歷史建築 (中華民國)，因為這是介紹「中華民國文資法」上定義的歷史建築。另外中文維基上的歷史建築分類我也去做調整了。--祥龍 (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

關於「Warning for CIR」，我想我得做些說明。首先，我沒有在對你發脾氣。其次，我從沒有要求你將「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan移動到Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China」。如果你真的有用心，你應該可以查到我是如何編輯的（上面已有提到）。第三，「浪費時間」不是在對你說的，是說我不想花時間去討論區討論，我沒有認為你在浪費我時間的意思。

我從頭到尾都只是因為查閱編輯歷史，所以來找你說為什麼會覺得將金馬放在臺灣分類下不太恰當。如果真的在實務上用臺灣分類比較好，那我也沒有話說。我沒有要你為我編輯，不曉得你為何會對我做出這種指控？不過你也不用回答了，我並不期望你的回應，只希望你能知道我的本意只是單純的提出意見。如果你還是認為我打從一開始就是來對你發脾氣的，我也沒有辦法改變你的想法。--祥龍 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

本人今後完全放棄與你進行任何溝通。分類你愛怎麼改就怎麼改，我沒有意見。十分抱歉浪費你的時間。--祥龍 (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

我實在不曉得你為什麼要把我刪掉的留言又放回來。難道我沒有收回留言的權利嗎？

另外我沒想到我們觀念會差異這麼大，建立一個「上級分類」居然會讓你以為跟「分類改名」是類似的行為，「創立頁面」跟「移動（重命名）」應該是不同的行為吧。我跟你講明了，我認為我建立Category:Historic Buildings of the Republic of China跟把「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan移動到Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China」不是類似的行為。我沒想到你居然會認為這是同樣的行動。

還有你說我「你說話前後矛盾，沒有要求我照做，後面卻說「那你就照著做」」。我的原句是「我也已經退一步說如果你還是覺得你原先的做法沒有問題，那你就照著做」，是說你就照著你原本的做法去做，難道這樣子也有問題？

話說回來，你有看編輯時間嗎？我重新建立分類是在你討論頁留言之前的事，你跟我說明理由是在這之後的事。你說明理由之後，我也讓步了，表示你覺得你原先的做法比較好那就照你原本的做法處理就好。結果你反而以為是我在你說明理由之後又擅自重新建立分類，說「反正你這個人只會要求別人聽你的，完全不管所有使用Taiwan分類套用在你的要求去改成Republic of China是有何難處」。那麼我在這裡重新再跟你說一次，你認為用Taiwan比較好就去用Taiwan，今後我不會在此議題上插手。你要去把Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China改回來還是放著不管都隨你。

你覺得我在鬧你，我也覺得你在鬧我。所以今後我們還是井水不犯河水比較好。--祥龍 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pbdragonwang: I checked the discussion about Kinmen when you posted a complaint to Facebook about I twisting your words at Wikimedia Commons. I'm sorry that what I said caused you to think that I disagree that Kinmen belongs to the Republic of China. When you said: “「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Kinmen‎ 」從「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan」的分類分出來“ and “金門、馬祖也是直屬於中華民國而非臺灣“, I thought you were discussing about the "Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Kinmen"‎ category is classified under Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China, but again it appears I am mistaken.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)