User talk:Orrling/archive 03

Archive_03, created 2013-10-12

Previous: Archive 02 Next: Archive 04

File:Korzits-says-yes.jpg

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, File:Korzits-says-yes.jpg, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

 

Please check COM:OTRS for how to process permission Vera (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem-T-shirt.jpg

File:Jerusalem-T-shirt.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chained people‎

How can they be considered to have a "disability"...? -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Being chained disables your movements. Try this. I did. Orrlingtalk 13:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

However, that's not usually what the word means in English (unless perhaps on the world of Harrison Bergeron...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

*Usually*. Maybe. We're dealing with a universal observation and understanding of Being Disabled here, and basing on it an impairment is not confined to a physicians' opinion. if you dislike this then recategorize Orrlingtalk 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Filemover

Hi Orrling. After seeing many valid rename requests from you, I decided to make you a Filemover. I hope this makes things easier for you. You can always continue with rename requests if you don't wish to move files yourself of course. INeverCry 18:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 19:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Horse-transport-sign.JPG

Nope. It's not double categorizing. Category:Horse-related road signs means "road signs showing horses on it", which means it can show horses and not concerning horse transport like this one. Therefore, File:Horse-transport-sign.JPG needs Category:Horse transport... or the creation of the sub-cat Category:Horse transport road signs (or Category:Horse transport-related road signs?). Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nudity and sexual behaviour

BTW same thing for your comment about videos of nudity and videos of sexual behaviour. Being nude doesn't imply you have a sexual behaviour. Also, you don't need to be nude (at least not full monty) to have a sexual behaviour. So here again, please respect the logic in terms of category tree. Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, as stated in this edit summary - Nudity is strongly associated with sexuality, this is a fact. Nude art (as the example you've given) is driven by a strong human sexual recognition. I personally don't think these two categories should be unrelated by means of tree-hierarchy. Orrlingtalk 12:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Strongly" is a cultural/personal POV and that doesn't mean "always". Anne Geddes's nude babies photographs has nothing to do we sexuality, nor Muybridge films (who was mainly interested in anatomy and the way bodies move). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message at the village pump so that somebody can arbitrate our edit conflicts. Hope we'll understand each other. Regards --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with the arbitration, I just remind you that keeping running your edit-fights is not a solution, please accept how things work with the categories on WikiCommons. Orrlingtalk 13:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem was YOUR misunderstanding of how cats work (the proof is that you finally understood my explanation and created the appropriate subcats) so I don't think I have to be blamed about the edit-fight. Indeed I reverted you once because of inappropriate categorizing and you did engage in the edit fight by reverting me back. Anyway, the main thing is : it seems that we found some solutions. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand your explanation, I regularly improve category-flow in any and every corner where I spot a potential opportunity to eliminate duplicative errors or overcategorization, like the one you're responsible to :) - but it's 100% fine if you assume that I created any subcat thanks to your involvement. Believing my categorizations are incorrect is also OK (no irony!). The bottom point here was that here on Wiki, once your incorrect edit is undone by one of the editors, politely avoid attempting to restore it before discussing it. Thank you, Orrlingtalk 14:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I could tell you the same thing. You introduced, IMO, a wrong categorization, I reverted it and you didn't "politely avoid attempting to restore it before discussing it" as you say. You were responsible of the first move, not me. And you never commented my explanations, which doesn't really prove you're able to discuss yourself. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Protest against the ownership claim by German nationals of VIII Dwór in Gdańsk (2008)

Hello!

Please do not category contents by neglecting a previously held ("official") category discussion. Please remove your edit. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed now, I think. Thanx. Orrlingtalk 15:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Moses fictional?

Several of the images in Category:Humans depicted with horns are of Moses. This edit of yours places Category:Humans depicted with horns within Category:Fictional people. While I would say that Moses may well not have been an actual individual, I doubt this was the intent of your edit, and I think you might want to revert. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you much in this; People with horns are fictional people, unless anytime proved that a human had grown horns Orrlingtalk 19:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So if I draw horns on your image you become fictional? I think not: the image becomes fictional. - Jmabel ! talk 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point Orrlingtalk 02:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Maps of conflicts

I may argue with you, but this surely will means that the incorrect (by beeing too much specific) category have to be "Maps of international relations"; naturally a note have to make a link with this last one, it could be one of the "see also:" types. -- Ciaurlec (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Riots, demonstrations and protests

Just wanted to let you know I decided to open a discussion the subject at "Commons:Village pump#Riots, demonstrations and protests". Please do participate! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Paintings of standing biblical figures

Hello, Orrling. You have new messages at Darwinius's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Dead_men

Category:Dead_men 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!

Foroa (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanx! commented there. Orrlingtalk 07:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

This is canvassing. It is disruptive and poor conduct. Don't do it -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits have been undone, I'm sorry. We let the recepient determine if they've been canvassed. Orrlingtalk 23:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate use of Rollback to re-include inappropriate canvassing. I sure hope we won't have to strip you of that tool for inappropriate tool abuse. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in this discussion. Fastily, this is the Commons, not English Wikipedia. It is much more common on the Commons to call in interested parties. We are a lot more informal here, and it is not considered canvassing. Since many people do it, it gets people from all sides involved. Orrling can comment on my talk page anytime she wants to.

Also, Fastily, you are abusing your admin status. Elsewhere you called Orrling's remarks "Gross" and "whining". I suggest you voluntarily remove your admin rights on the Commons in order stop embarrassing yourself further. Please stop being a dick. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty damn obvious you want to start a pissing contest with me, which I'm normally game for, especially given that in this situation it would undoubtably be more fun for me than it would be for you. However, considering that this matter is resolved, I'm going to drop the stick first, and simply pretend I never saw your comment ;] Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First, Orrling, why did you only notify me, Mattbuck, and David Levy of this? If you'd notified a wide swath of admins, I'd understand this, but selective notification always looks just a tad suspicious, so your reasons would be helpful. Second, Timeshifter - you seem to have forgotten that Fastily's laid down his mop for the time being... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I could not tell from his user page if Fastily was an admin. He was talking like an admin. So I assumed he was. By the way, Orrling also notified me about the COM:AN discussion. She knows of my longterm interest concerning Palestinian-related categories. I don't consider that canvassing since she must know from past experience that I will not hesitate to disagree with her at times. I try to be fair and open-minded. I wish more people would deal with the root causes of many of these problems; which are the naming issues concerning Palestine and the Palestinian territories. See: Commons:Requests for comment/Palestine and Palestinian territories. Please participate in that discussion! --Timeshifter (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know our administrators of course, never mixed so I wouldn't know an admin unless they said to me "Admin here", so I visited com:admins where there's to the right a list of those holding the tool & picked random 3 with "en" as first language (my conservative cultural reason), hesitating whether 3 or 5 persons would do better, right? It did feel that replicating a message onto 5 talkpages at a time is already spamsome. I normally possess a flat-even approach to all those that are Admins (as much as to those like me non-admins), having no hint as to what agenda either may have lol... maybe with the exception of User:Timeshifter who more notably than others participates in the efforts to improve this project's coherrecy beside me. hehe... Suspicious? :)) I'm a very transparent editor. Orrlingtalk 13:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 days

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 days for the following reason: Disruptive editing at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, never undo an Admin close and never use rollback for things that isn't vandalism. Bidgee (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC). If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

It was not a rollback now, but a plain (legitimate) undo while some authomatic-completion text 'slipped' bad when I approached specifying in the summary field which I intended to do, due to mal-applying the tool that I have; surely one didnot have the right to "close" a patently-active public topic and I've done my civil due, allowing others to further take part in this. Maybe I should not have straight-forward undone that admin, but this "block"'s terms are not considered acceptable. Orrlingtalk 05:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll be willing to unblock you if you agree that you'll not undo any Administrative action without the agreement of the Administrator, doing so will result in the block being reinstated. I know you didn't use rollback (since you don't currently have that right) but you still reverted an Administrative action after being warned not to by another Administrator (Fastily). Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to enjoy graces nor benefits of doubts, whether this is of disappointment or not; no "administrative" warning has yet ever been introduced to me, you may point at one such so we both can be sure that you tangibly know what you're talking about, I do not. My user permission was blocked in unreasonable circumstances, and I'll take any risk it takes to clarify that "reinstating" this 3-days-block at any future stage will not be legitimate as I'm a 'senior' editor that hasn't been either warned nor blocked before. Regardless of all that, and despite you bringing unsupported and possibly inaccurate facts like that referring to me previously reverting an Administrative action – I agree I shall not undo administrative edits. Yes, I do hope your integrity as an Administrator can allow you understand this sort of complexity. I roll-revert only when preceding edit(s) is an abuse. This was not the case now. Feel free to take back, or not, this crude block-act. Cheerz. Orrlingtalk 05:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we both have differing views and opinions. You should never undo a Administrator's topic closure, if you disagree with it then raise it with the closing Administrator or raise it to an uninvolved Administrator if you don't get the result you wanted. Regarding the block length, it is up to the blocking Administrator as to how long the block should be but it doesn't mean the block will remain since you can have it reviewed or agree on a conditional unblock. Since you've agree not to undo any Administrative action, I'll be unblocking you shortly. Bidgee (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I didnot know undoing Administrator's topic closures was prohibited. Furthermore, have never had any clash with administrative processes - as much as I could tell they were administrative - so this is the first one, and hopefully last. Three-days, or for that matter any unwarned block, needs the blocker to be very emotional, which should be avoided. Favourably you now as Admin want to still check the circumstances of that one topic closure – I garantee you find it a wrong decision (as clearly no reason is there to close a throbbing discussion at such an early stage), so it was my civil urge to undo it and immediately after this I notified the user. Assumed this was a fair path. Orrlingtalk 06:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Undoing admin closes isn't prohibited. Unless Orrling has repeatedly done so inappropriately and been warned for it(?), I don't know why it would be even mentioned in a block notice. See, however, my comment on canvassing above. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm then wondering, given that you hold this opinion and are an Admin, what reason can stop you from thus performing that notice modification, for example, if not from actually dislogging the unjust block or, to the least, commenting out at your blocking colleague's wall your disagreement to their hasty act. (Thankz..) Orrlingtalk 13:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to do anything more, really. You're unblocked and if the question of "why was Orrling blocked" ever comes up in the future, you can point to this and the related AN threads. If a pattern of abuse shows up, something more could be done - but this individual incident seems to be resolved, imho. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I may disagree with titling it resolved, as yourself you can still see that the false block notice is clearly still there with a tangible potential of misleading the next admin, right?.. One could also suggest – given your personal ethiquette is this fair – that you revert your talkpage edit with the dubious summary "rm apparent cnavassing" as we both know that the message you were removing is no canvassing, I guess......? Orrlingtalk 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but you could always add {{Unblock granted}}, noting that Bigdee unblocked you. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know this tag. What does it do? Orrlingtalk 18:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). From what I read in this thread the unblock is justified because Bidgee (the admin initiating the block) was incorrect about the rollback that was mentioned in the block notice. Rollback was not used for the talk page revert. In any case, Fastily is not an admin, and so reverting his removal of a talk page comment, is not a reversal of an admin action. Finally, according to Philosopher (an admin) reverting an admin close is not justification for a block, especially without warning. Also, according to the COM:AN thread, admins there said that the block was also incorrect because Bidgee was an involved party since it was his close that was reverted.

I will try to put this in an {{Unblock granted}} notice via substitution:

{{subst:unblock granted}}

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "See discussions." Unblock reason: "From what I read in this thread the unblock is justified because Bidgee (the admin initiating the block) was incorrect about the rollback that was mentioned in the block notice. Rollback was not used for the talk page revert. In any case, Fastily is not an admin, and so reverting his removal of a talk page comment, is not a reversal of an admin action. Finally, according to Philosopher (an admin) reverting an admin close is not justification for a block, especially without warning. Also, according to the COM:AN thread, admins there said that the block was also incorrect because Bidgee was an involved party since it was his close that was reverted. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

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

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the previous block in Orrling's block log (the block by Matanya) was found to be unjustified according to admins at this COM:AN thread here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

*"Unjustified"*? hehe.. I think that more than just the two of us have agreed there that the troll who blocked my account for 24 hours needed some deep review of his/her Wiki tools' holding & usage; have you noticed any progress concerning the proposal to remove that block off my user's log maybe? or other corrective actions? Did you see how the attempt to maintain that subject on the public agenda received a silent fade out archiving? Orrlingtalk 02:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). The COM:AN discussions about this block are archived here:

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 38#Come come guyz - and the sections that follow it. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Users Bidgee and Foroa

Orrling. I started discussions at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard concerning User:Bidgee and User:Foroa. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: COM:AN

In reply to your comment, Orrling, on my talk page... --Timeshifter (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:India: Category:Andhra Pradesh, Category:Karnataka, Category:Kerala etc - 're-categorisation'

Hi, i do not agree with your 're-catetorization' on October 2 and 3, 2012, of mainly geography-related catories related to Category:India, and especially Category:Andhra Pradesh, Category:Karnataka, Category:Kerala etc.

As i remarked, there was no 'discussion' etc before, and imho there's absolutely no need to do so as thouse categories are 'well-established' the last three years.

So'll you plan to continue, please 'discuss' before under Category talk:India and let's try to find a consense, thanks and regards, Roland 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted the motives there. Orrlingtalk 22:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, place take notice of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems as of 01:15, 6. Nov. 2012‎, as you did not wait for other Wikimedians comments to find a 'consense' please see my request on November 5, 2012, 21:09 and started to [quotation]... fixing edits ...[quotation end] as of 01:03, 6. Nov. 2012 ff. Thanks and regards, Roland 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

? and dot

[[1]]. Does the dot put mess categories on top, instead? :)--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The top is normally reserved for meta-thematic or leading topic sublists, while those of an <<unidentified>>-nature or internal maintenance purposes are placed down at bottom, as in the example you've just given. Orrlingtalk 11:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstand your edit. But are you sure? I found a lot of "?" or "!"--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes positive, these edits ("?", "!", ".") are very irregular and you're welcome to join the wave of fixing them and eliminating these indexings whenever you see one. Orrlingtalk 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Creating category chaos by your ill-considered unilateral actions

You moved a dozen files from Category:Flags of the Palestinian National Authority to Category:National flag of Palestine, and then you got Category:Flags of the Palestinian National Authority deleted without bothering to create Category:National flag of Palestine in the first place, so now those files are hanging in limbo. Maybe you should have bothered to ask some other people's views on sensitive matters first, instead of just charging ahead in your usual unilateral don't-care-about-anyone-else's-opinions manner... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Orrling and User:Foroa -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Apartheid sign.jpg

It only says אפרטהייד if you read the bottom left part of ה a second time as another י... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah no, this sign uses a graphic game, very common. The "ה" was thus painted slightly higher than its conventional line, so that its little bottom piece joins as the first of the two "י"s. No reasonable Heb speaker will spell Apartheid with only one Yod Orrlingtalk 02:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

National flags

Hello. Category:National flags of countries is not redundant. A nation is not necessarily the same thing as a country. Quebec, for example, is a nation, but it is not a country. This category is for recognized, sovereign countries. There may be a better way for doing it (a better explanation or category name), but Category:National flags of countries shouldn't necessarily be merged with Category:National flags. Let me know what you think. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm sorry to be such a pain in the *ss sometimes with these word issues. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

People of Black African descent in the Americas

I am not sure what you mean by "broken trees". There is no rule that all subcats need to be categorized by continent, even if some are. If you want to do so, I think that's great. But if it isn't done, there is nothing wrong with that either. And if you do name a category incorrectly in a manner inconsistent with English-language usage, you can't expect others to fix it in the manner in which you would prefer. Being a collaborative environment does not mean that others need to take steps they feel are unnecessary. What was necessary was to remove subcats from a parent category in which they didn't belong. If you wanted to broaden the scope of that parent category by renaming it, that's your choice. As far as I was concerned, the problem was fixed, and I was largely happy with the sitatuation as it existed. If I made a mistake in categorization, it would certainly be unreasonable for me to insist that Orrling fixes it, or I am going to maintain/restore the error. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

When you severe one subcategory from others in a thematic bundle like Canadians of Black African descent <—> US citizens of Black African descent - while two other similar-idea lists exist there i.e Asia and Europe, you leave them one foot on the general Black African field and one foot on the American continent and there the broken tree. This is regardless of your view of the point in continent lists, and to just make myself clear I'm no continent freak, just advocate an aesthetic & clear-navigable cat array. Orrlingtalk 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Orrling, there was nothing wrong. There was no "foot in the American continent", whatever that means. The main problem was fixed, and there were no category problems. I know you disagree with me, and that's fine, but you seem to think I need to agree with you, which is not fine. If you wanted to salvage Category:People of Black African descent in America and rename it, that was completely your issue - frankly, my choice would have been to immediately delete all the continent categories as unnecessary, which you probably would have liked a lot less. In deference to you, I left it alone. I shouldn't have to apologize for staying out of your way. As far as I was concerned, the issue was over. This expectation that people will fix things in precisely the manner you want them to, otherwise you will reintroduce your erroneous/confusing parent category after some arbitrary time limit, is not the way things work here. I am sorry that I disappointed you, but your expectations here were unrealistic. I'm really tired of you giving me grief over this silly issue.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fail - I would NOT have objected a deletion of the continent categories (done, of course, widthwise equally across the Commons, for that matter). but as long as they exist — and you had published a renamenote immediately supported, you may want to fix the desired category accordingly and not draw its residents to the more very general parent assuming "the issue is solved". This is all what I'm here about. Thank you. Orrlingtalk 15:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was not going to be making project-wide proposals. That you even mention that suggests you are not getting what I am telling you. I'm sorry, but this is like talking to a wall. I don't mean that to be mean, but I am just frustrated because you are not listening. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You've said that you think continent categories are generally pointless, what have I missed? It appears you may be identifying some inconsistency here. But if this gives you a hard time you don't have to explain yourself. Only if you wish. I'm generally listening. My point, in any case, was made: When you post a proposal and it's accepted, please don't perform edits that contradict what's just been agreed on into a less-preferable form. Orrlingtalk 18:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My only point was that categories pertaining to Canadians and Latin Americans do not belong in a category that pertains to the United States . I then posted a note that suggested your parent category was incorrectly named -- I had a complete and total lack of interest from that point forward as to what you did with what I believed to be a pointless category. My subsequent edits didn't contradict anything, certainly nothing that had "just been agreed on" - I simply again had to remove categories pertaining to Canadians and Latin Americans from a category that pertains to the United States. You made an error, I corrected it twice, beyond that I didn't care what you did because there was absolutely no problem with the category structure as it was. This assumption you have that I had some obligation to fix something otherwise you were entitled to reintroduce errors is just baffling. And with that, I have wasted way more time on this issue than it is worth. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You knew very well that the categry did not pertain to the United States ;) but to America continent, because it contained also Canada and South America, and thus accounting that you simply “fixed an error” is unsustainable - as you’ve been shown multiple times that drawing Blacks in Canada/Brazil out of their continent frame while leaving Blacks in the US within it (-and while Asia and Europe are there beside) breaks the coherrecy and the scheme. Alas. Maybe I was harsh confronting you about you taking a less-broad-horizoned step when you opted to strip two subcats from their continent parent instead of fix the parent’s name, which is what I would do if I insighted a cat was misnamed; the thing is that after 10 days of nobody fixing it I reckoned (wrongly) that America was practically OK for you, otherwise you’d have, as stated, fixed it into Americas, right? From there, as far as I understand, you’re making up an unfounded accusation on me possessing funky unrealistic expectations, while the only humble “expectation” was that you, as anyone else sharing category management with me, care for the catschemes, and not override a helpful categorization which you statedly do not object, you only object its name. If you in the first place actually objected Category:Blacks in Asia/Europe/Americas as being a superfluous idea, why not say it straight in your initial message up there; respecting you I would consider dissolving these three. - though I would feel sorry since Blacks in the Americas responds to Ethnic groups in the Americas and so on. This is how things are from my angle. No anger here or blaming on you for something. Try to pin discussion pages that you start onto your watchlist, so you won’t miss replies as happened to you here which encouraged me to think you’ve lost interest in the rename. Orrlingtalk 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Orrling, knock it off. This is just bizarre. You appear to completely not understand/care what I have written above. You are making all of these incorrect assumptions about what I believed to be true or what I cared about, not to mention really questionable conclusions about the "coherency" of the "scheme", and then haranguing me on the basis of your incorrect assumptions and conclusions. What a waste of both of our time. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I didnt mean to be haranguing. Sorry. I do care for what you've written. Orrlingtalk 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I apologize to you for getting testy. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit war on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is not acceptable

Remarks: I don't care who is right on the issue. But since it seems you are unable to get an agreement via a discussion, don't edit this page. I also warned Foroa. And removing twice the warning on your talk page doesn't help. So I blocked you for one day. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems I still need to explain something very fundamental. This is of no importance on which side you are, the only thing is that you’ve posted an improper text here. For example, this edit was totally fine – it’s just that it arrived one second earlier than I as I was reaching to do the same myself! :) (that is, undoing my command at the botpage, looking forwards to discussing and agreeing). So I felt I ‘missed’ my right to remove my edit myself. The only topic hence remaining was the tool you selected for communicating here. Text messages on Wiki need to suit the event and occasion they respond to, it’s disappointing me in a personal level that some of us choose unrewarding paths. There’s nothing personal about you. But if you wanted to pass a “Stop-the-edit-war”-message to me, it needed to be identical to this one. It’s fantastically simple.. As your behaviour in this page was unacceptable I reverted you, and as your (subsequent) behaviour in my user account was unacceptable it was considered not-done (though topics off my watchlist, that was sadly inaccessible, are less interesting for me). You may want to check the meaning of Arga katter får rivet skinn, maybe you learn about things done out from rage and revenge which never reach the target, and acclimatize yourself to the standard of conduct most of us favour here. Orrlingtalk 22:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have modified your block so that it applies only to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Foroa is under the same restriction. Please work it out with him/her and when you have reached a consensus, let me know on my talk page and I will lift your restriction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the refreshing air, which might be invigorating for numerous areas of very stagnant unofficial status-quo around Commons. (BTW does it mean the account was not blocked in the past day? Why no one called me!? (; ) Look. The user in question has some proven history of problematic conduct across Wiki whereabout he/she has the chance to mis-use the "extra"-tools granted to them by God-knows-who; you need to review this, this (the very first thread, referring to just the current issue of ours), and more, virtually anywhere that I'm involved on Commons. This has started about a year ago when I dared to contest him/her on one of political edits relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict, hahah! Anyway, it took me quite long time to identify that miscellaneous, allegedly-unrelated violations come from that one single source (am not a log checker), and it still is making me very sad. Now, that you witnessed a pattern of deleting an editor's movecommand without notifying them (=me), and as you as Admin probably well acknowledge that this is, to be mild, unpreferable (about 100% of my movecommands have been carried out so far), you might understand that although I come generally with good will and good-faith assumptions, my opponent might keep attempting to thwart anything just because I'm part of it. This is for you to consider that when you expect that we-two settle and agree about Category:Red ensigns, I had already started that, well-enough time before what-ever-thing led to blocking my user yesterday. So as you understand now the question remains whether I'll enjoy their cooperation or not. Cheerz Orrlingtalk 23:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In reply to the above comment, and the comment on my talk page. I think the problem may be that you and Foroa are not native speakers of English. So you may not have noticed all the details in the "warnings" section of User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Also, most talk pages do not have such weird rules that allow deletion of others' entries. Foroa should have immediately gone to your talk page and told you about that warning section after he removed your entry. That is what the "warnings" section says to do: "If you challenge a request added here, please simply remove it and kindly inform the requester of your reason for doing so." For more info see my comments at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Orrling and User:Foroa. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does this have to do with any figure of "warning" that anyone needed to tell me about, do you think this is because I'm not a native English speaker? :-} Users who object a movecommand need to specify their reasoning and notify the "requester", right? MoveBot's warning hence doesn't seem related to my case as I've never removed someone else's command without talking it out first... Orrlingtalk 02:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read this section: User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Warnings. According to that section it is not necessary to discuss things first before removing a move command. Anyone can remove a move command according to the instructions there. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I read it, and... what do I see? This: Challenged move requests may be removed by other editors but they have to "inform the requester of your reason for doing so". which was ignored by the user who removed my request. I still don't understand your stance, I'm afraid Orrlingtalk 03:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A previous comment of mine higher up said the same thing as you are saying. They have to inform you. But I am also saying that they don't have to inform you first. They can remove, and then inform you. I don't know if he tried to inform you or not in his edit summaries. That would not be the best place to do so though. There needs to be a talk page for that talk page. :) Then someone could say, "see talk page", in the edit summary. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, a special page isn't a necessary thing here; according to the way my other colleagues manage their objections it seems fine to just text the requester or - add an argumentary "Disagree" comment below the relevant command. But we are enough rational and grown up to agree that just edit summaries arn't the place meant by that section when it states "inform the requester of your reason for doing so", all the more so putting this summary, right? ;) In short, that user has violated and is violating the "warning" section of the Movebot page, and now that you mentioned at the other discussion that they're an Admin this should be twice as much harshly regarded. Orrlingtalk 05:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). I think there needs to be a separate talk page. I think the solution is to rename User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands to this:

• User:CommonsDelinker/command requests - That would automatically create this talk page for it:
• User talk:CommonsDelinker/command requests

Then people could put "see talk page" in their edit summaries when removing or changing move command requests. That would allow more discussion. I also suggested this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Orrling and User:Foroa. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeahh but from this point onwards this issue is not relevant and not attached anymore to the issue that this thread concerns. I'm sorry to say this, but again running in multiple directions trying to invent new technical methods before killing a central problem that we all deal with down here daily is not so interesting for me, and I disagree with you anyway on your solution since as I showed couple of times there souldn't be any problem in using the existing page for expressing an argumentary objection on a command which then can proceed to the relevant category's talkpage. I'm not fond of distributing myself into more and more new page inventions, which only dissolves the focus on the very-matter, as here and now. Opting the fun of waving a brand-new discussion platform rather than defending our threatened fabric from an ongoing vandalism is just not my list of priorities. Orrlingtalk 13:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the reason your problems are not getting resolved as concerns Foroa is because you are not following the procedures of the Commons. Each disagreement you have with Foroa, or anybody else, has to be dealt with problem by problem according to the rules of the Commons. User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is not a discussion page.

Disagreements over category names is a common problem. Many such disagreements last for long periods of time unfortunately. {{move|new name}} and COM:CFD are slow methods, but that is what is available. I post my opinion on specific category names, and then forget about it, because I know it can take a long time, and worrying about it does little good. Taking shortcuts, as with HotCat, etc. is risky, and I avoid doing that with controversial category renaming. The fact is that none of us always gets our way. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please add the following commands on my part

These categories need a new title:

Rename Category:Internet explorer user to Category:Internet Explorer users (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Internet explorer user;Internet Explorer users;r; Orrlingtalk 05:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Firefox user to Category:Firefox users (0 entries moved, 2 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Firefox user;Firefox users;r; Orrlingtalk 05:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Users to Category:Commons users (77 entries moved, 17 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Users;Commons users;r; A very insufficiant naming; needs to parallel Category:Wikipedians. I checked and fixed all subs Orrlingtalk 07:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Community of Wikipedia to Category:Wikipedia community (87 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Community of Wikipedia;Wikipedia community;r; Align with Category:Commons community Orrlingtalk 07:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Orrlingtalk 16:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

CDC restriction removed

I think it's been long enough and the issue has cooled down, so I am lifting your page block on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Please refrain from edit warring in the future. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of "Category:Red ensigns"

Orrling, you are really not doing yourself any favours by engaging in a revert war at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" with Foroa. Please don't do that. Instead, start a discussion about the renaming of "Category:Red ensigns" at "Commons:Categories for discussion", and leave a message at the Village Pump to alert other editors to the discussion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How come I'm being told I'm being engaging in a revert war.?? It is just your and my duty, to make sure no stray user deletes editors' motivated commands without reasoning — you obviously didn't see that when I posted my discussion they undiscussed it, and that's it. Anyway, fine. I'll grab this to the cat's talkpage Orrlingtalk 14:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, I think it's quite clear from the instructions at that page that it is only meant for uncontroversial moves, and that it is open to any editor (though usually it is the administrators who take action) to remove controversial requests. If a request is removed, then either put a {{Move}} tag on the category or use the COM:CFD procedure – once again, this is explained in the instructions. Sometimes, a short discussion can lead to resolution of a particular renaming issue, but if it doesn't then just use one of the procedures I mentioned. It is really no point repeatedly reverting a removal of a request. That, in my view, is a revert war. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You sound good at mentioning general tips, but what you don't understand is: This rename isn't "controversial". There is nobody ever consistantly and topically objecting that required capitalization, only an attempt to disrupt Wiki. I think you can be conveinced that I wouldn't go modifying the Bot requests just because it's fun. Orrlingtalk 14:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 days

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 days for the following reason: Edit warring. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Despite warnings, you voluntary keep reverting subcategories of Category:Rosh HaAyin in an inconsistent state. Foroa (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see related discussions:

• Please see: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Matanya
• Please see: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Foroa --Timeshifter (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hehe thankz. :) You should already know that the blocks don't have effect nor is any of that user's other actions, what matters is that we not break the continuity of category moves and even more strongly that any such violation by them be overturned and its perpetrator’s motivation repressed, which is among my fields. Important now is to assist in the various cat-fixings, so that we won't will these debts to our kids, that's the troll's goal, but enjoy a correct wiki still today. Come help Orrlingtalk 20:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Rosh HaAyin and Rosh Ha'ayin

Please see Category talk:Rosh HaAyin. More people have gotten involved, and there is no agreement. Please do not make any edits whatsoever with any files or categories with Rosh HaAyin or Rosh Ha'ayin in the name. I believe the correct name will end up being Rosh Ha'ayin without capitalization of the second "a". But I do not know, and no decision has been made. Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Foroa also where this is being discussed.

I fear that if you make any edits concerning Rosh HaAyin or Rosh Ha'ayin you will be blocked for a longer period of time. Because now it is clear that there is disagreement. It seems that there was no disagreement when you were first blocked. See the timeline at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Foroa. See your block log too. The incorrect blocks need to be removed. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Noooo, don't get it wrong please, I'm only restoring the original cats that existed longtime with the different names, so that our discussion can process from that intact point and not from a stage after someone has attempted to carry out whichever decision they please... See the history of each of the two subcats I'm restoring! They were under assault 3 days ago as part of attempting to show a false consistency of "Rosh HaAyin" that can slant the discussion into this one disputed spelling. I'm not touching the main category:Rosh HaAyin. Orrlingtalk 21:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit anything concerning those files or categories. You need to defend your actions more in my opinion. Other admins need to understand what happened. It is still not clear, and the only place you can really defend yourself is at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Foroa.

If you don't defend your actions then by default people will feel your block was justified. That means your next block may be for a week, a month, or indefinitely. I don't have time to figure out all this anymore. It is up to you now to be more clear about your actions, and to wait longer before acting. It is good to wait at least 3 days for people to get involved in move discussions before you act. Most people do not check their watchlist every day. If there is disagreement on a move talk page as at Category talk:Rosh HaAyin then you may have to wait months for it to get resolved. If you keep rushing around I fear you may be blocked for a very long period of time. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you still really think they blocked me for a particular edit on Rosh Ha'Ayin..?... Remember the things that you already know about the last months. Also, they will use more and more blocks to gain precious time to instate whatever position on different categories & try keep me distant from what they know are my domains. technically I'm fully prepared for it but we need to not drop any of the arenas where they might put energy in disturbing any correct initiative, and keep fixing anywhere possible because the history logs show everything. I'll comment at the Rosh HaAyin discussion later, it's now crucial that no preliminary modification is made such as the move they did from Rosh Ha'Ayin Forest to Rosh HaAyin Forest. Also did you notice that the last block came as I was DEFENDING 2 subcategories from warring i.e restoring the original version to allow the discussion? Orrlingtalk 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not paying attention to what I am saying. You are talking to the wrong person. You need to be explaining this to the other admins reading Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Foroa. Otherwise your next blocks may be for weeks, months, years, or indefinitely.

Also, the technical reason for your last block by Foroa concerned Rosh Ha'ayin. The background stuff is secondary. People do not notice or care about all the "defending" and "restoring" stuff. All that matters is that those categories are now being discussed and there is no agreement. If you don't understand what I am saying, then it is obvious to me that you are going to be blocked for longer and longer periods of time. Wikimedia has a page called "meta:The Wrong Version". I suggest you read it. Once there is disagreement you can never defend or restore stuff without being accused of edit warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It concerned Rosh Ha'ayin, but was a fraud. As I said please see the relevant histories and if you don't have time for it then trust that others (admins) do check the logs. That person would have blocked me for any reason as they can, and evidently they made it a 3-day basing on the previous shorter blocks instated by others, all undone...! :) I'm actually quite disappointed that no one undid this one last block, I'll clarify in just other words: They stated "Edit warring" and my action followed by the blocking was setting-in-place two subategories of two variants other than "Rosh HaAyin", that merit waiting till we know what spelling is right to implement uniformly on all subcats. Orrlingtalk 23:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Having seen your latest edits (Special:Contributions/Orrling) I have recommended that you be blocked for a week. See my recommendation at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Foroa. It is not only Foroa and Matanya that are rushing around. Now you are too. In my opinion you need to read and understand meta:The Wrong Version. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Orrling, I don't imagine I'm saying anything you haven't heard, but just in case: this is not a matter of who is right and wrong about the facts. It is about abiding by process. Your comments should continue to be welcome where the discussion is taking place and where people are trying to reach consensus, and if people try to prevent you from commenting there, or abuse you for doing so, I'd be totally on your side. But if you keep taking preemptive actions in an area where the only consensus at the moment is to leave things as they are until agreement can be reached, the consequences are pretty predictable: Foroa, or someone else, is going to keep blocking you, and no other admin is likely to overrule him. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

But I mean, you don't expect that ppl would believe you're saying all this devoid of the elementary idea that the one user involved in all the clashes I had in the past year is the user who is also in all those times (as much as this one) using their tools to delete/block/protect/filter out movecommands to safeguard their positions - which themselves are there in the first place only to mess with me up and not anything that has to do with Wiki's sake, and you still tell me about abiding by process. That user if you don't stop them by e.g. ruling them to avoid any contact with my edits will continue using any method to trigger me into conflict and then (ab)use their administrative interface and enjoy this community's naivety. This colossal disorder is what should be talked about, and you can't blame me for not voicing it over so far. This is baffling. please revert that block. I'm so tired from hundreds of edits on the wikipedias in the past days and the Commons yields to me a huge peaceful satisfaction. This should be a question of who is helpful to- and consistent with this project. Please check history logs: given that consensus is to leave things as they are until agreement is reached, you'd discover that by restoring category:Rosh Ha'Ayin Forest I was defending precisely this – as that was the original title of the category, i.e I was fixing from others' preemptive actions. Orrlingtalk 08:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked again

As you moved again Category:Rosh Ha'Ayin Forest, the reason for which you where blocked previously, it seems that you need more cool down time. --Foroa (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Stav Shafir category

hello - i noticed you created a category for Stav Shaffir but that the category is named "Stav Shafir" with one f. her name is spelled with two f's, so i think this should be fixed? :) (you can check, for example, her facebook account: http://www.facebook.com/stavshaffir) Idoshlomo (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Move it to the en.wiki form. Orrling, if you want to move the category name please do it through en.wiki. Geagea (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not wait on English Wikipedia to correct truly obvious spelling errors. Anyway, English Wikipedia already spells the name correctly, so what are you talking about? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not obvious spelling error. The correct place for naming correctly or not is wikipedia. neither of us are an expert in transcription from Hebrew to English. Generally, commons have not the pretension of being experts in naming from Hebrew to English. Geagea (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone, the answer to you User:Geagea is unfortunately no: we don't move category names "through en.wiki". moving categories to the en:wiki-form as authomatic procedure is rejected on Commons and not only for the reason that many of the English pedia's transliterations from foreign languages are wrong (see their embarrassing Neve Sha'anan for a random example) – we rather use independent sources of linguistic accuracy, likewise relying on just Commons' different languages' long-time transliteration experts, such as me in Hebrew-to-English. when creating new cats it's preferred to exclusively stick to the most correct known spelling, since the Commons is a media repository serving other projects and there a resource of correctly-tagged library shelves, i.e our categories. a latest reference for this is found at Category talk:Rosh HaAyin where arguments supporting the accurate title have ruled over those advocating the simplified variant adopted on en:wiki (and see the many references with the normative transcription for Shafir e.g here, here, here, here, here, as well as on Wiki here, here and here). On Commons we're not bound by that sister-project but are attentive to considerations of educational value and users' favour. In the Stav Shafir case moving the cat to "Shaffir" is acceptable because currently Mrs Shafir herself spells her surname in that inaccurate fashion, in her own "Facebook" account as shown to me by User:Idoshlomo. However, suggesting that we generally follow en:wiki in catnaming has never been accepted as a guideline for Commons other than as an optionality. In case you don't agree with this please use the Village Pump. Until such accord is given please avoid "harmonizing" cats with doubtful sources. Orrlingtalk 10:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). Geagea and Orrling. I was mainly referring to her own Facebook account. We are talking about someone's own name in English. She knows how to spell her own name! So there is an obvious spelling error on the Commons.

Where there is controversy as at Category talk:Rosh HaAyin we wait until the discussion finishes before doing anything. That may take months, but that is how it works on the Commons as far back as I can remember. I have been editing on the Commons since August 2006. We do not depend on what Wikipedia decides, and that has never been an approved policy on the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Notably the editor that moved Stav's Commons category to the "Shaffir"-variant did not base it on her choice of spelling her own name but on the English Wikipedia article's.. Orrlingtalk 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see English Wikipedia will be the reference for any encyclopedic issue. Geagea (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That page is not a Commons guideline or policy. From the top of the page: "This page is a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process." Are you that clueless that you did not understand my point about her own Facebook page spelling it correctly: https://www.facebook.com/stavshaffir --Timeshifter (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, proposed Commons guideline and a good one. There is no reason that place name on commons be different from en.wiki. I apologize for my ignorance about the word "clueless" but it seems to be problem with the attitude. You should not be surprised that en.wiki spell the name correctly. This is part of what they are doing.Geagea (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have 25,000 edits on the English Wikipedia, and English Wikipedia makes many mistakes. Wikipedia is not a reference. This is Wikipedia 101. References are references, not Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, mistakes, vandalism and premature articles by new users, can happen, But still, as I understand, you agree that there is no reason that place name on commons be different from en.wiki eventually. I'm saying en.wiki because we choose English as the main laמguage. alternatively, if we choose Hebrew as the main langusge than he.wiki should be the place we look. Evry wikipedia deals with naming of persons and places. They have the people who deal with it, linguists ect. The have the prosses how to decied wich name to prefer. Commons have not the tools to deal with it and the wikipedia do it anyway. If you find mistake in the name in en.wikipedia than move it to the correct name/suggest to ren ect. in en.wiki. For us as commons, only in obvious cases the name in commons can be, temporary, different from en.wiki. Category:Rosh HaAyin for example in not obvious case. There is no need to make double disscusion. The correct place to disscus about it in en.wiki. If the name chage there then it will be change easly her. Geagea (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). Then one possible logical conclusion of the way you are thinking is that English Wikipedia should use the Commons to decide all spellings in English. But that would not work either. References are what we use on both the Commons and Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia uses its own references for the facts in their articles. The Commons makes its own decisions, and so does English Wikipedia. No one tells us what to do on the Commons. We decide. Not you, not me, not anybody else. We decide. We use a rough consensus based on references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See

• en:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• en:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it
• en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source
• en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(My addition) I'm just stunned by this manifestation of unwilling to accept what is and was repeatedly agreed upon in so many occasions. This has been explained to you as nicely and argumentarily as you can ever get from us concerning the naming-upon-en:wiki-yes-or-no subject, once again: We are NOT based on the English Wikipedia in naming conventions for transliterations from non-latin alphabets. This is why we have language experts right-here at hand on the Commons (not counteracting parallelling rename activity on the Pedia), this is why we're moving category:Rosh HaAyin to Rosh Ha'Ayin, and any other such category. this is because most of us know putting up with spelling blunders is not an option in an educationally-motivated database. If linguistic accuracy is not within your fields of concern you should at least refrain from setting landmines in the path of those of us working to maintain a reliable, errorfree project. Orrlingtalk 03:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia, we are a media repository. There is no need to double encyclopedic work like naming of places or persons. In an obvious cases like I mentioned above we use different name fom en.wiki. In a cases when there is no article we can do it as well. And yes, we decide her not to spend time on work that already done by a wikipedia. Geagea (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop changing template generated categories

Please stop changing template generated categories without any discussion. All categories generated by the metacat template must be entirely automatic and none of them should be manual. --Foroa (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I spend a major part of this morning repairing most of your damage. Meta categories are template generated and as the name indicate, flat lists, mainly for maintenance. No need to create additional levels and structures in those categories. --Foroa (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. If it's about the Flat lists I truly was thinking these categories were subjugated to the same-name plain-list parent (Category:Xxx (flat list) sub-cat of Category:Xxx) and not viceversa, indeed I don't have any clue what a "template generated" is here on wiki but I now learn that some category structures are created automatically, it just felt like a mistake when a normal meatcategory is contained in an insignificant, irregular one, instead of naturally the other way around (and sometimes looping to one another) while we do know that the "flat" alphabetical pages idea HAS been discussed and quite largely agreed to be superfluous. All in all I was believing I was correcting errors. Orrlingtalk 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the dispute is about. But I notice that you, Orrling, reverted many edits of Foroa after your last message just above at 06:59, 19 December 2012. So, the block is justified. Once someone, anyone, points out a problem with some edits, then you stop editing, and you go to the talk page. This rushing around without discussion will just get you longer and longer blocks. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, if by "rushing around without discussion" you're meaning my recent reversions in the "by-" categories (such as this) then you're wrong. The problem is well-covered, discussed, spoken out and referenced by me in multiple talk pages already, see here, here and many more. An idea what the latest dispute is about I don't have either (haven't actually noticed a dispute), but this is irrelative to my long-established commitment to clear out any occurrence of apparent vandalism, last session is no different. as long as it works for us, and as long as combatting suspected system abuse is a central assignment here I don't see a reason to not stand in its front and this has no connection to this or another topical edit, which you appear to be mixing about. Orrlingtalk 03:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 2 weeks. The reason for the block is Destroying meta categories once again (block log). 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.

Foroa (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 2 weeks. The reason for the block is Same as previous (block log). 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.

Foroa (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I might have reacted maybe too hasty on the sight of the many unexplained reverts. I will examine them and might unblock you later tonight if they prove to be OK. --Foroa (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am having Internet problems, so it will take a day longer. --Foroa (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I was indeed to hastily, your 15 or so reverts (which where often modified reverts) that alarmed me where mostly correct. --Foroa (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Edit warring and disruption at Category:Bantu people. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Bidgee (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Orrling. I looked at your recent user contributions and could find no discussion with Foroa concerning Bantu categories. Am I missing some discussion? Why not discuss rather than revert? See en:Bantu peoples and Category talk:Bantu peoples. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi see here. I've further learned to always consult back-logs such as this which gives you notes about the user's past actions when an item has been deleted. Didn't understand your reference to an en:wiki article, am dealing with Bantu here - a major historio-cultural theme see Slavs (and the like). Orrlingtalk 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

en:Bantu is a disambiguation and cannot be used as root category name on Commons that uses Category:Bantu peoples as much clearer root. --Foroa (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a category name you're unhappy with or propose alternatives you may start a separate discussion under a suitable discussion name and can set forth your opinion(s) there (it can be this page, guaranteed that basic manners are kept) We don't coin terms just from our imagination here, and try to avoid twisting category semantics, we need to work to facts and to what exists. Bantu is an ethno-linguistic theme of Africa that splits to individual people and to language group, and such is the structure we have had initially. Orrlingtalk 07:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, I moved the long standing but incorrect Bantu people to Bantu peoples as it is a set of peoples, you moved to Bantu category, I just restored. --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Second time, this thread is not a discussion about right-or-wrong trends within the continuous classification job. you may want to initiate an aptly-titled topical thread starting with (e.g) “I disagree with xxx” or “This category is incorrect because...”, a block message is evidently not a suggestive roof for defending your category choices, which require publishing an own discussion. Please learn how to use Wiki Commons interface. Orrlingtalk 03:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 2 weeks

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 2 weeks for the following reason: continued edit-warring, see Category:Archaeological sites in Jordan Rift Valley, COM:ANU. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Renaming vehicle cats.

Please stop and get consensus for such a major change before making it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What is your problem / Orrlingtalk 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing this at Category talk:Vehicles by country first. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussing what. You evidently haven't cited whichever possible edit you're upset with, and rather have come with a rude tone up here where manners actually play a role Orrlingtalk 22:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you have a passing familiarity with your own edit history today and know where the "vehicle" categories were in it.

Now raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User_talk:Orrling_and_mass_renaming_of_vehicle_categories Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 month

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 month for the following reason: mass rename of categories ignoring other arguments, continued disruptive behaviour. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Needless to say ...

I have to conclude that after each day of your production, several administrators have to revert several series of your editions, and delete category trees that nobody wants. Needless to say that if your contributions create more problems than they solve, we have to take stronger measures. --Foroa (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have little clue as to your reason to harass editors again, to write here this note points at a possible deep discontent of you from this environment and it's suggested that you willingly begin questioning your own cause on Wiki, where apparently most of your edits on this project are reverted by us and you're being repeatedly and politely remarked of your counterproductivity. Orrlingtalk 16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is Edit warring on Bantu topics (block log). 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.

Foroa (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say ... (2)

... that if you continue to do mass changes or structural changes without any form of formal consensus or discussion, you will be blocked again. --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is for various moves without consensus, including Category:Givat-Ram for which there was no agreement whatsoever. (block log). 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.

Foroa (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Banknote.jpg

File:Banknote.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Stefan4 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Women_with_black_skin

Category:Women_with_black_skin 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)