I am not (very) active @ Wikimedia Commons anymore. (as outlined far below)
I do not watch/check this page nearly as much as I used to. You can still leave messages here, but expect (much) delayed responses.
When or if I get around to it, I will post something suitably ranty to explain why. Until then, you can scan down towards bottom of this page, to get the "general idea".
I still ocassionally do some sorting & categorization, & may upload files from time to time.
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.
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)[reply]
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\talk19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think I agree most with number 4! It stresses me, trying to decide where to answer people, :-) Anyway, you're welcome! Maedin\talk06:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 justCategory: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.
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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)[reply]
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!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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:
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
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.
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.
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!
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)[reply]
Rename Category:Albrecht Dürer, works of to Category:Works by Albrecht Dürer (39 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Albrecht Dürer, works of;Works by Albrecht Dürer;r;
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
Such a far-reaching recategorisation would be better discussed and agreed upon first, perhaps at WikiProject Tree of Life, then the names and category scheme would be agreed upon and a bot could do most of the work.
The (potential) extent of these sub-cats if/when applied to related categories, such as Art, will increase the burden on editors and severely tax their patience.
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)[reply]
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!
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)[reply]
...& 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?
& 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?
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
"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)[reply]
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!
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!
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!
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)[reply]
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...
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)[reply]
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]
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!
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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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!
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)
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!
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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!
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!
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!
(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)[reply]
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)
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 leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. 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 see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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!
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!
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)[reply]
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
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!
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)[reply]
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".
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!
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.
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)[reply]
Your comments at Maryse Selit deletion discussions[edit]
especially not anonymous-ip numbers who demonstrate FAR more knowledge of commons' procedures, than their contrib-history would suggest was at all reasonable... [2]
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!
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!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
... 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)[reply]
... YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW CATEGORIZATION WORKS @ commons.
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". -FASTILY19:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request declined
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
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)[reply]
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)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)"[reply]
Unblock reason: "Done, by russavia. Moving forward, remember to stay mellow in discussions, especially if you find yourself in disagreement with others. -FASTILY01:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
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.
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, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ProfLeprof 7272 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Jee03:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
+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. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
…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)[reply]
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!
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!
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!
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!
You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.
You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: "unilateral block by a non-neutral admin, WITHOUT any notice, warning, or consideration of the case at hand, & for the record, NO, there was NO WARNING given before the block"
i BARELY managed to post ONE comment in the discussion there, & was blocked by user:Yann, WITHOUT their having even READ my position, much less entered into ANY discussion.
i hereby request an uninvolved 3rd party admin to review this action & revert this block.
i do not want yann doing the unblock; i don't want anything further to do with this admin, & request that they refer any future concern to another party.
i do not have confidence in this administrator's actions.
Hi again, You must remain calm, and talk with users instead of reverting. Your language hasn't changed since your last block. The notice is in the middle of the page that everyone is seeing it, so people don't complain that my bot is slow. It is frustrating, you are edit-warring to add non helpful br's to the page instead of helping with moving the rotate api forward. I am disappointed :-(. I hope you learn from this block. I wish you a nice evening. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NO, your fancy diagonal infobox is blocking the header info on the CATEGORY PAGE.
i cannot see the information about alternative options to rotate images
i cannot see the catscan info link
i cannot see the COUNT of items in the category
your infobox is COVERING AND BLOCKINGALL of this.
there is no policy that permits you to break category pages like this.
L& i have told you ALL of this, on your own talkpage, which you then reverted.
'also; in my edit-comments, from the first, i INVITED other users to come up with a better "fix.
you didn't do' that, you just 'reverted to the blocked, broken version of the page; 'repeatedly.
you are breaking a category page, repeatedly, & then blithely saying "that's alright".
it isn't "alright", & after your repeatedreverts, your removing my comments from your talkpage, & being improperly blocked by an admin who cannot possibly have considered the case properly, i think i'm entitled to be just a little bit "uncalm".
I really don't see any problem here. The yellow box is blocking the last few letters of Administrative tool: Catscan2 list of this cat with uploader details and Medien in der Kategorie „Images requiring rotation by bot“ That's it. Giving the info the box gives me I really don't care about the few letters. Yeah, doesn't have to be in an odd angle, makes the thing more visible tho. Getting all hyped up and getting blocked is plain silly. Geez, we have fires burning in every corner and you start a big discussion over something so insignificant? C'mon Lx 121, you're not a newbie. Take a break and get over it. Please. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well, on my screen, it blocks the whole catscan link, the info about how many items the category contains, & part of the info about alternative methods of rotation; & on a screen smaller than mine, it's gonna block a 'whole lot MORE. i am using the plain vanilla default "classic" wiki "skin"; so what i see is what most of our end-users will see.
if there is some "new policy" on common, that makes it OK to break pages in the article-space, then that's news to me.
& IF this block is "justified", survives review, & IF it turns out that i'm the one being unreasonable here, for trying to FIX a problem on a category page, & then getting into a dispute with the person who caused that problem, & who KEEPS stupidly reverting the page to PERPETUATE that problem, & after blithely assuring me that "it's ok" to BREAK A CATEGORY PAGE like this, then reverts my comments on their talkpage, then am DONE with commons, thanks.
IF it really is the will of the community that things need to be this messed up, then goodbye & good luck with that. i have better things to do with my time, thanks. let me know how it turns out? i'll be @ wikipedia; you can find my uploads there.
BTW, the same user, has also got the same fancy graphix yellow "sticker" pasted over their bot's page, where it is alsoblocking access to items on the page; & the same user is being just as stubborn about insisting that their infobox remain right where it is, blocking the page.
quite frankly, if the user really needs for their own bot's page to be blocked & useless, then i really don't care, but i sumbit it for the record on 2 points:
i) that it demonstrates the problem with this infobox
ii) that it demonstrates the unwillingness of the user to resolve the problem; said user's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
also, as regards "edit warring", what exactly is my "violation"? i did NOT break the "3r" rule, and for that matter, the other user (steinsplitter) is leading in the count of reverts; he reverted me 3x, i've only reverted him twice.
so where is the sanction on the other participant in this "edit war"?
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
You are YELLING again. I changed the box, however it does not changes the fact that you are not nice to other users. It was told you in you'r fist unblock request, i am telling you it again. Please be kind to other users . If you agree to be nice to other users, i think you should be unblocked. If not, then i think you should remain blocked. It is always very important to be nice to other user. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment:FIRST. No, i am not "yelling". this is a text conversation. i am using bolded, italic, and CAPITALISED type; for emPHAsis on key points. This "technique" is used in the United States Declaration of Independence, it is used in the King James Bible, & it is used by the very successful author Stephen King, among others.
SECOND. you are leaving out the fact that you created an infobox which obstructed items on a CATEGORY PAGE. you are leaving out the fact that you WOULD NOT "ALLOW" the problem to be fixed. you are leaving out how you reverted my "fix" of the problem 3 TIMES. you are leaving out that after denying there WAS a problem, you erased my follow-up comments from your talk page, rebutting this claim.
you are leaving out that you would not fix the problem until AFTER 2 ADMINS, both "senior" to me in "rank" @ commons, both complained about it.
that category page is NOT "yours"; it is not in your user-space, & other editors do not need to "ask" for your permission to fix problems on that page. NOR do you have the right to make alterations to a category page that damage its functionality, & then "defend" that CATEGORY PAGE against ALL ATTEMPTS to fix the problem that you have created.
ALSO; i am leaving commons. once my block expires, i will finish up the things that i was working on, & i will post my "valedictory". i have had enough of the way that the "community process" is run here, & i have had enough of the people that are running it.
unless/until there are some MAJOR changes in how things operate @ wmc, i will not be back. given present circumstances, i do not expect to return for some time... xD
my future work-activity will not quite be "zero"; i will continue to "curate" the items that i have already uploaded here, i will continue to use commons' material in my work @ wikipedia, & i will continue to cross-link & to make connections in wikidata. i also reserve the right to exercise my "franchise" as a wikimedian; to discuss & vote. but, aside from what i need for wikipedia, i will not be working on categorization, i will not sort any files, i will not make any corrections, & i will not be doing much of anything else "here".
all of my future uploads will be @ wikipedia. i am currently doing WWI-era material, so i'm not uploading that here anyway; to avoid copyright hassles with commons' "dual-jurisdiction" rule. when i do switch to something else, i'll just keep going @ wp, & if somebody else wants to move the files to wmc, then fine; if not, then fine.
that admin has now declined my unblock request TWICE, in spite of being asked NOT to intervene.
i REPEAT that i am asking for a NEUTRAL, UNINVOLVED ADMIN
i REPEAT that i am requesting user "hedwig" to NOT TAKE ACTION on this request.
the only thing i'd like from user "hedwig' is an explanation for their comments in the initial unblock request.
Unblock request declined
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: "as per FIRST unblock request, NOT for "Hedwig""
Decline reason: "Hedwig is impartial an since you continue to use this talk page for shouting against other people I blocked your talk page acces as well. You violated your unblock conditions set when your indef block was lifted. You had to refrain from rude behaviour and personal attacks. The fact that you violated those conditions alone would have been a good reason to restore your indef block. You are lucky that the block only lasts for two weeks. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
Boy's choirs 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!
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
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!
hi; what do you suggest? include it in each of the 3 definitions? no one of the 3 useages has clear "primacy" in french (the language of the .ogg file). Lx 121 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Takeaway: Hi back :) 'milk sherbet' is a subset. most sherbet/sorbets (& pretty much all traditional-recipe ones) do not contain any significant milk or dairy products. "ordinary" sorbet/sherbet is made from water, fruit/flavouring, sweetener, & often egg or mastic or something as a binder (i.e.: milk is optional if used at all). 'milk sherbet' uses milk as an element of the flavouring as well as for a binding agent. fine point, but for most of the english-speaking world, "proper" sherbet/sorbet has little or no milk. also; 'sharbat', while coming from the same root simply refers to a fancy cold drink, sorbet/sherbet (& sherbert) are the icy/frozen varieties. not sure how to arrange the heirarchy for that one, so have left it separate. was thinking of doing a dab-category for sorbet>sherbet & sharbat? Lx 121 (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.
Possible acceptable uses of this ability:
To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.
The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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!
Category:CSS_Manassas,_by_Robert_G._Skerritt 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!
and taking elementary arithmetic and comprehension lessons? there're almost 10 million wikidata items of humans. for every 100 000 such items, 300 are living persons and have commons cats but will not be identified by wdib. you should be able to figure out the remaining maths after going to school. best wishes 🤣. RZuo (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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!
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!
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips and tricks
Made a mistake?
→ Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
. If you agree to be nice to other users, i think you should be unblocked. If not, then i think you should remain blocked. It is always very important to be nice to other user. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC).png){kind=small}
