User talk:Juiced lemon/Archive2007b

ARCHIVE 2007b: July - September 2007.

Do not edit this page!

---

July 2007

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Geni 3

I think you missedunderstood my statement. Nameing dissputes and bias on images and article are not something I have ever had a problem with (athough debateing the copyright on en:Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg while others were fighting a content battle was ah interesting. I was also one of the main people involed in sorting out something of a conclusion to the argument over Image:Bahaullah from miller.jpg.Geni 15:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Pfctdayelise/WikiProjects community

Hi Juiced lemon, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this idea of mine for changing the model of the Commons community. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

SVG maps category

Could you please explain what you meant with this. Didn't really understand the edit comment. /Lokal_Profil 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Commons:Categories#Category structure, there are 6 separate structures in Commons, including Category:Media types and Category:Topics. “separate” means that the structures are not linked: if we add links, we get one structure, and not six structures.

Therefore, these structures are joined at Category:CommonsRoot, but are not linked, except in some particular cases, when a media type is also a topics.

So, Category:SVG maps of Mexico must not be categorized in the topics structure, since each file in Category:SVG maps of Mexico (or subcategories) is (normally) already categorized in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Never realised that it was part of a different category-tree. I know that there are a lot of images which are only categorised by the SVG category. I still think it's very usefull to have some connection between the two trees though since often if you're looking for a map you are in fact looking only for a svg map. Woould a comment on Category:Maps of Mexico along the lines of

For SVG maps only see Category:SVG maps of Mexico

Be ok? /Lokal_Profil 20:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to add a text with a link to the category page. It doesn't mean that I agree with the principle, but the issue need thinking and discussion(s). --Juiced lemon 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Categories#Category structure does not prevent an SVG map category from being categorized both by media type and topic. It says "All categories (except CommonsRoot) should be contained in at least one other category,"

Please also see w:Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree. It says "each category can appear in more than one parent category." It says "it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees."

So Category:SVG maps of Mexico can be categorized in both Category:SVG maps of North America and Category:Maps of Mexico.--Timeshifter 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered you: There are not guidelines preventing each stupid thing an internaut can do.

Here, we are speaking about separate structures, not about each structure itself. So, don't mingle with discussions you don't understand. --Juiced lemon 15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"each stupid thing". If you continue with your incivility I will report you to w:WP:ANI and the commons incident board also. These insults must stop. You still do not understand that categories do not form a strict single hierarchy. I understand categories very well. It is you that do not understand. Readers can read our other discussions also, in the previous talk sections. --Timeshifter 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop your underhand accusations. There are no insults. My answer is a general statement. If necessary, I'll repeat this statement until you understand it.

If categories structures are not perfect tree-like structures, there are not complete mess neither. That's why categorization in Commons is not made according each user's inspiration, but according schemes. --Juiced lemon 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"My answer is a general statement." So you think that everyone who disagrees with your personal categorization scheme is doing a "stupid thing." I am giving you another friendly warning as requested by various guideline pages before one goes to an incident board. It seems you are often mentioned unfavorably at the commons incident boards. --Timeshifter 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When I read what you write in my page, I have doubts about your ability to expose a sensible complaint. You are currently putting the mess in Commons organization (overcategorization, in particular), and if you continue, I'll create a new section for you in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is a warning. --Juiced lemon 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been mentioned unfavorably there MANY times at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Maybe you should pay attention more to what people are saying there. --Timeshifter 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should propose an alternative scheme, before criticizing existing ones and destroying the work of other users. You are only claiming the right to make edits according to your own inspiration, and that cannot appear as a communal attitude. --Juiced lemon 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the one inventing categorization schemes. --Timeshifter 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No classification may exist without scheme. You are the one who don't want to classify. --Juiced lemon 18:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the one removing useful categories, not me. --Timeshifter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, you'll learn that adding categories may be harmful. Example: any media file in Category:Categories by country is miscategorized. You add useless categories, that's why I remove them. --Juiced lemon 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding useful categories is not harmful. Adding categories that do not apply is harmful. Putting categories in a category instead of a more specific subcategory is harmful. I have been categorizing for a couple years. I know how to categorize. --Timeshifter 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely at Commons:Categories#Category structure, we find for Category:Topics "ALL media files should be categorized under this category for the sake of allowing others to find them by topic." So, under Category:Topics, we eventually find Category:Maps of Mexico. Now, Commons:Categories#Category structure also permits categorization under Category:Media types, of course without excluding other trees, so why shouldn't Category:SVG maps of Mexico assist in the categorization task? It contains 93 images and one other category, why should they all have to be recategorized up a level to Category:Maps of Mexico just because Juiced lemon does not want to permit Category:SVG maps of Mexico in Category:Maps of Mexico?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What you did with subcategories of Category:Maps by theme is not the work ot an user who know how to categorize. I didn't create this category, and I have no particular reason to preserve it. However, you must not destroy this category without prior discussion: have some respect for work of other users! --Juiced lemon 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary category. If you "have no particular reason to preserve it" then don't worry about it. I am not going to delete it. I am just substituting a better category for it, Category:Maps --Timeshifter 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to consider that the user who created this category thought it was useful and would not agree with you. I didn't say that I had agreed with the move neither. Removing the contents of Category:Maps by theme and cluttering up Category:Maps is not the right way to go about it. Emptying the contents of a category is similar to destroy it. It does not matter that you don't go to delete it. --Juiced lemon 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is common to substitute a better category in order to avoid over-categorization. --Timeshifter 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that say Category:Political maps was overcategorised being in both Category:Maps and Category:maps by theme I'd say that you removed the wrong category. Category:maps by theme is a more specific and more suitable category.

When it comes to the SVG maps categories there seems to be different interpretations on how this should work so maybe Commons:Categories for discussion is a solution/Lokal_Profil 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Category:maps by theme is a form of over-categorization. Category:Maps is where maps are supposed to be categorized by theme in my opinion. That is what an overall category does.

SVG maps are maps, and as such, I believe that they should be categorized in all relevant map categories.

I just started discussion on both subjects at Commons:Categories for discussion. --Timeshifter 16:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East

Hi. Why are you depopulating Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East? I agree that pictures are not drawings and that "Satellite pictures" have nothing to do in Map categories, but you could revert only part of what Timeshifter is doing (reference: [1] [2] [3] and so on). Please don't exacerbate other's frustration. Edit wars usually lead to nothing good. Try to communicate with Timeshifter instead of repetitively pressing the undo button. Regards. — Xavier, 14:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see now that this conflict is not new and that you tried to communicate in the past. Please both of you, be civil and stop this edit war. If you can't reach a consensus on your own, then ask the community. — Xavier, 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This category is for media files, not for categories regarding to single countries. A satellite picture is categorized according to the photographed area. Therefore, all pictures showing significant parts of Middle East are already categorized in Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East: you'll not find more pictures in any of the removed subcategories.

Commons categorization system is not designed to learn something to readers. If you are searching a media file in order to illustrate a Middle East article, we can assume that you know that Jordan is in the Middle East. --Juiced lemon 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can see here that Timeshifter made some edits only for provocation (since this edit follows his creation of the page). --Juiced lemon 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Juiced lemon is removing satellite picture subcategories from overall satellite picture categories. He uses the edit summary "pictures are not drawings". Juiced lemon is oftentimes illogical in his categorization. He has been mentioned unfavorably many times at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. He ignores much of what people say to him. He ignores my replies to his points at

• Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East.

That discussion there started before the discussion here in this section. I just made some new comments at the above-linked community discussion. --Timeshifter 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please work constructively

Juiced lemon: I would appreciate it if you would use a bit more care in your phrasing and if you work hard to try to avoid giving offense. I think that your approach in the last two map related conversations may not be the best as you have managed to alienate several other users. I know you are a prolific contributor but I also know you have been counseled about this in the past. Please give my words serious consideration. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I take your words in consideration, but I don't understand what is the problem with the last two map related conversations. --Juiced lemon 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are many things in those two threads that others might take offense at, and I suppose I could list them all off, but this particular one struck me as pretty bad. Timeshifter apparently was quite put off by it and the exchange deteriorated pretty rapidly after that. Try to avoid giving the impression you think users are stupid, or that they ought not to participate in working on things... it's just generally not good. YOU may not think you intentionally gave offense but if you can try to couch your words in the gentlest form possible, perhaps others won't take offense. I hope that helps, a little. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you some explanations about this particular point. --Juiced lemon 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you want. But my point really is about you. That's not to say that Timeshifter is perfect. Or that I am, far from it!!! But even if you think you're being provoked, taking the more mellow approach is a better way to go, if you can possibly manage it. It's not easy, but it works better. If you see what I'm saying. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Musicians_from_Guatemala "sabotages my work and disrupts Commons Wikimedia" is not the way to characterise the actions of someone you disagree with. Stop with the aspersions, please. I am tired of warning you, and the next time I see an aspersion like that, you will be blocked. You have been warned about this repeatedly and this sort of behaviour is disruptive. Change your approach. As I said not two weeks ago, right here, "Try to avoid giving the impression you think users are stupid, or that they ought not to participate in working on things... it's just generally not good. YOU may not think you intentionally gave offense but if you can try to couch your words in the gentlest form possible, perhaps others won't take offense." ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Galaxy clusters

I have undeleted this per your request. --MichaelMaggs 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Juiced lemon 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Record labels

Yesterday you have edited this. Yet there is no explanation what Record labels are. I can see, today there is also inhomogenity:

• labels of records as found by gramophone records (printed matters)
• record brands (producers) with all photographies of producers and places, where the oldies were born.
  Is this your aim?--Wikipit 10:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I added interwiki links. It means that the contents of the category is suitable for illustrating the linked articles. In particular, the English Wikipedia have not a “record brand” article, but a record label article. You'll find the description of the category subject is this article. Media companies which manage several record labels, like Sony BMG, are not categorized in this category.

Notice that “record labels” are not labels, and not “labels of records” neither. Labels of gramophone records can be used to illustrate the linked articles, amongst other media files. We could have also pictures of audio cassette tapes. --Juiced lemon 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for discussion and explanation.--Wikipit 19:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gramophone Company

Image deletion warning

Category:Gramophone Company 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging seecat and move cats without destroying information

May I kindly request, when tagging cats for move or seecat not to destroy the existing information (texts, cats, IW's) before that information is being moved to the new cat. (ex: Category:Radio of Belgium and Category:Namur (Province of Belgium).

It is too tyring to run always behind your back to try to recover that information, so in the future, it might be easier for us to simply revert such changes. Thank you. --Foroa 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get tired, and tell what is wrong beforehands.

Regarding to Category:Namur (Province of Belgium):

• Category:Wallonia is a linguistic area, the correct category for the province is the administrative division Category:Walloon Region
• a province is not a region, therefore I didn't add Category:Regions of Belgium
• if you add the same text to all the categories of provinces of Belgium, we could maybe create a template for that.

Then, Category:Radio of Belgium was empty, so the informations are not needed at the moment. --Juiced lemon 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you need harder wording in your style such as: "Your uncivil behavior is disrupting the operations here. You are sabotaging other people. You are blundly lying: Category:Radio of Belgium was not empty at all. An your story about the text template (for 5 provinces) as poor excuse for the deletions of the text shows your strange twist of mind."

And a province is a subset of a region, no reason to delete that cat. And please stop your sad stories about the non existing Category:Walloon Region or Category:Flemish Region: one day you might understand it, but in the mean time, nobody in Belgium seems to defend such an additional and unnecessary category structure.

The region subcat I put there is an experiment to facilitate browsing, which I will explain in the use cases I am writing. --Foroa 12:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously a troublemaker and a lyer. Category:Radio of Belgium was empty when I added the “seecat” template, and you'll not be able to prove the contrary.

Concerning you experiment, consider that it have failed since it breaks basic principles of categorization.

Your ignorance cannot be an excuse for your extreme aggressiveness. --Juiced lemon 12:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am just adapting my wording style to yours, although I must admit that you lowered somewhat your tone last week.

If you find that you did not empty Category:Radio of Belgium (see [4]) then I would strongly suggest to consult a doctor. --Foroa 13:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I spoke about other pages or files categorized in Category:Radio of Belgium. If this category had not been categorized, I didn't find it. --Juiced lemon 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wallonia structural changes

It is extremely rude to change all names and structures of categories on your own initiative as a stranger because you find so. Although in Wallonia, the difference and approach between regions and communities is more pronounced and not the same as in Flanders, I don't know if your changes will be appreciated. Civil people try to find an opinion and consensus of participating Wikipedians before introducing such drastic changes. In Flanders, there is no single support for such change. --Foroa 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories about aspects of the Basque Country

Hallo

I've noticed ypou've created a category called Category:Architecture of the Basque Country which currently only contains Category:Architecture of Biscay. There is a problem with the term Basque Country, which can be understood as just the autonomous community of that name (Provincias Vascongadas) in Spain or as the whole Basque Country in Spain and France. Sometimes, it might be clearer if categories of aspects of the provinces of Biscay, Alava and Guipuscoa are directly linked to categories of Spain. --Javier ME 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that problem. My work is based on concepts which are explained in Commons:Naming categories and Commons:Territorial division of the World. In particular, categorization “by location” is made according to current political division of the World, that is countries (which are sovereign states) and subdivisons of countries.

So, the subject of Category:Basque Country is an autonomous community of Spain. The historic territory Basque Country (historical territory) has a minor importance, regarding to the “by location” categorization. --Juiced lemon 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Category:Walloon Region

I must ask you to stop removing the deletion template on the category. You are well aware that it is against the policies here and would be warning others if you found such action. Given your status there is no point in me protecting it however if you remove it again I will consider blocking you. I would place the same message on any user's page who was taking this action and there is nothing personal in this. I trust you will avoid putting me in a difficult position - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This deletion template is a problem as long as it links to the discussion page Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Flemish Region, which concerns the deletion of another category page. Another user noticed that: User talk:Teeceematiek#Deletion request Walloon Region. The similarity between subjects is a point of view, and cannot be decreed without discussion, in particular in the middle of a poll. I ask you to ensure the validity of the deletion procedure. --Juiced lemon 07:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - looking into it --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken - see Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Flemish Region for my comments. Let's sort this nicely can we. Thanks for your explanation --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hum - if you can would you translate what the user was placing on talk pages about the deletion request? Always nice to know what is going on (especially for such a new user). Let me know & thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, give me links to the texts you ask me to translate. The category have been suddenly deleted. Could you undelete it? --Juiced lemon 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - requested undeletion from ALE - maybe this and some of the other postings related to this? I have now used Babel Fish so I have some idea of the tone of the conversations. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To spare you the trouble, I can repeat it in a few words; it all centers around the ground and the procedure (le fond et la forme).

• Le fond: User Teeceematiek is rumbling quite rightly in the sense that the deletion request should concern the two regions in Belgium: if you do it a certain way on one side of the country, you should do it the same way the other side too.
• La forme: the followed procedure to include the Walloon Region in the midst of a voting is a procedural mistake.

Personally (this is not in the talk), my biggest problem is that we have to go through such long procedures and pains (to delete a basically empty category) because JL, in a couple of minutes, invented and installed new categories and structures without any single demand, support nor concertation (and which we opposed heavily from day one). I guess I could invent like that ten new categories and related structures per day to keep 20 people permanently angry and occupied. The positive side of this sad story is that we noticed that a significant amount of people feel concerned about the Belgium side of the commons.

The fact that Walloon Region empty cat is deleted automatically is a clear proof that we could use our time in a more constructive manner. --Foroa 12:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a misleading description of the facts. Since you don't precisely specify what you are talking about, nobody can contradict you. I have created thousands of categories, and I can give you lessons about how to build category structures, if you need them. --Juiced lemon 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to use your valuable expertise in the first place to document how you name and organise the maps, the locator maps, etc for a specific country/province/city. Proper documentation might save us all a lot of (re-)work, misunderstandings and waste of time. --Foroa 09:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning

The phrase "brutal conduct" is extremely unhelpful. Please moderate your language when interacting with other users. Please stop and think before you post anything. My patience is not unlimited --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If destruction is not brutality, tell me what it is! I moderate my language, but the facts are the facts, and I'll not misrepresent them, nor my thought. Don't ask impossible things. --Juiced lemon 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is asking impossible things. We are just asking you to try to phrase things in a non confrontational way. You have been warned and warned and warned about this. I hope Herby doesn't have to act over this but if he does I suspect it would have wide support. Please!!! Moderate how you phrase things. NOTHING here has to be described as "brutal". Nothing. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But, I try to phrase things in a non confrontational way. I didn't search confrontation with ALE! and I don't understand the problem with the phrase "brutal conduct". --Juiced lemon 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you are not a native english speaker, which makes it difficult to know what the problem with some phrasing might be... but "brutal" carries a negative connotation, there is no positive connotation possible. "not helpful" is much more neutral, for example. Perhaps you need to build up a list of words to avoid, I don't know. But really, if you try phrasing things around the actions, not the users, it would help. Avoid ascribing motives or giving value judgements. Assume that ALE (a long time user) means well, and state, in neutral tones, why you think the action is not correct, without suggesting that ALE is conducting himself badly. Leave that to others. I recommend you read meatball:DefendEachOther for some ideas about this. Discuss why the action is not a good idea, and leave ascribing motives out of it completely, and rely on others to come to your defence if needed. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bailiwick of Guernsey

Hello. Bailiwick of Guernsey is intended to organise the bailiwick and the islands within it. Please discuss before proposing redirect. Thank you. Man vyi 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Guernsey is about the bailiwick. Islands can be classified in Category:Islands of Guernsey. No need to change the current organization. If you want, we can discuss that in Commons:Categories for discussion. --Juiced lemon 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In en: there's a category for the Bailiwick- the article redirects to Guernsey, but at least there's an explanation of the difference (but I'm still not sure it's clear to everyone). The question has been discussed at Talk:Guernsey. Man vyi 17:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Provinces of Belgium

C'est avant qu'il fallait discuter de cet article. D'autres contributeurs tant belges qu'étrangers (et non des moindres) n'y ont jamais rien trouvé à redire. Alors à bon entendeur salut !

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll share my thoughts

I've been reflecting on your situation for a while now JL and will share some thoughts with you. They are not intended as criticism but to try and get you to look at a wider picture. You have made substantial contributions to Commons however of late you seem to have enjoyed disagreeing with folk quite a bit. The problem now is that there will probably be folk who will take an opposite view to you because of the arguments that you have been in.

So - what might help

1. Find some discussions that you are in agreement with others about (there must be something) and show folk that this is part of you too.
2. Take up Foroa suggestion and develop an "essay" on how you see categories develop and enhance the work of Commons. It will illustrate the more positive side that you have and allow you some support for your discussions. If you structure it you can point to sections of it in your conversations with folk.
3. Try and understand that communications does not consist of what you think you say - it is about what other folk involved think you say. Cancel some posts, work on them offline maybe
4. If none of these appeal then I must suggest you consider a bit of a break. Unless I misread the situation the only people really trying to work with you at present are Larry & I - that really should make you think a bit.

I do see that you are trying I think but you have quite a bit of ground to make up I think from reading around. I'm looking for positives here but only you can help out - I do hope you feel you can --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

1. What can you do in a Wiki project when most other users disagree with your actions? Near nothing. An yet, most of my actions have succeeded. This edit suggests that this user is agree with my recent proposal.

2. I have already written Commons:Naming categories and Commons:Territorial division of the World, which are the basis. There was very little contribution from other users, and that is discouraging.

3. It takes me a lot of time to communicate. I can't do better about this point.

4. I did a long break a few months ago. The most annoying is when other users are uncivil against me because they think that they incur no risks. --Juiced lemon 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Point 2 - perhaps these need wider publicity. I know I get confused by categorisation and would love if there widely accepted guidelines and practices written up and linked from places where people would find them. I encourage you to raise the question on the VP as to where they should be linked from, and solicit more comments from others. Point 4 - I have seen this and I agree with you. It is unacceptable. Drop someone a private note if you want someone to look into something. My email is always open to you. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe me JL I am not against you. However I am for collaborative working. In the past 48 hours I defended you and your actions more than once. Like Larry I'd be happy to hear if you genuinely think you are being wronged (I listened to you and acted on the Walloon one). Work with us and I assure you we will work with you - Larry can speak for himself but I feel the way he sees things is not that different from me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty much spot on the same. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool it, please

This is a personal attack. To paraphrase you, "such behaviour is not compatible with communitary work and would [will] not be tolerated".

Just a few weeks ago you got a large part of the active community upset, and they argued with you and tried to help you. I don't think they want to do that again, so I'll be quietly watching, and will nip it in the bud if you bite again.

I am not interested in arguing with you, nor am I interested in helping you. I am interested in preventing another big drama, and will have absolutely no reservations about blocking you if you continue along this path. Your next "warning" will be a block. Please just treat others how you'd like to be treated (and yes, I know you've been treated badly in the past, but two wrongs don't make a right, eh?), do your good work, and try to avoid conflict for a while. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 01:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please just treat others how you'd like to be treated is precisely what I do. The edit you have linked is unfortunately realistic description of facts. Descriptions of facts (good or bad) are an absolute necessity for harmonious community work. You didn't give evidence that I have used clumsy wording neither. So don't be surprised if I cannot find any positive way in your threatening intervention. --Juiced lemon 10:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jl, it's fine to have disagreements. It's not at all OK to ascribe bad intentions to a fellow user. Just avoid saying things like "In fact, User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT have just scorned our procedures and was completely satisfied about that," and all's fine. These debates get very heated, and making ad hominem arguments really doesn't help resolve them. Keep it cool, and it'll all be good. Fail to do so, and you'll find that I'm not one to make threats... I'm just telling you to stop and think before you post up something like that. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's maybe better to have that discussion elsewhere, not on the account of a specific user dispute, so it might be taken less personal. By the way, I find the spelling "Luxembourg (Province of Belgium) perfectly acceptable with an uppercase: that's how I would write it myself as I consider the fragment in the parenthesises as a separate phrase that start with an uppercase. But I am sure that you will have referenced arguments for your position. Anyway, certainly not a reason to stir things up. --Foroa 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If the move templates had not been removed, we would have proper pages to discuss about this issue. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) refers to The Chicago Manual of Styleand Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third edition). I don't own these reference books, however I think we can assume that the capitalization rules are applied in the English Wikipedia, in particular in the pages of this category: Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. --Juiced lemon 10:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Korea

Hello, why have you removed that links? Is it forbidden? I think those links are very helpful for users and other visitors can rapidly jump to and fro. Please recover it. --아흔(A-heun) 11:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a misunderstanding here: categories are not only used for logically connecting categories and media together as in other wiki's. They are equally used as some sort of primitive browser aid that compensate a little bit for the lack of real wiki cat browser and the poor search facilities. So, even if you think that categories seems overlapping, bear in mind that are they are very often there to accelerate significantly the browsing for categories, especially is those categories are in a foreign language. --Foroa 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just writing an introduction text to Category:Korea when you have added your message. I hope that fulfils your 2 requests. --Juiced lemon 13:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a great initiative Juice lemon. It gives me plenty of other ideas. --Foroa 13:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Atlas of Palestine

Why did you remove the flag? See this diff of your removal of it.

There was a long discussion and consensus was reached. See Talk:Atlas of Palestine.

Also, why did you remove the population, language, surface area, etc.?

And why did you mark it as only "historic territory"? The Atlas says that it covers both historic Palestine and the current Palestinian territories.

Are you going back to your old habits of mass reversions and deletions without discussion? --Timeshifter 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed any flag. According to the English Wikipedia, Palestine is an historic territory. Association between this historic territory and the Palestinian territories is manifest propaganda: I don't care what the Atlas claims, since the Atlas is out of scope of the Commons project, and cannot be a reference about Encyclopedic issues.

Think that your insistence to add non-neutral informations to galleries could challenge the whole Atlas. In Commons, we don't need to worry about issues which are not useful to find media files. --Juiced lemon 10:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see that your last edit removed the flag caption and reference. Not the flag itself. But why would you keep the flag, but not the flag reference and caption?

You linked to the article, Palestine, but I don't think you read it very well. Quote from it:

"In recent times, the broadest definition of Palestine has been that adopted by the British Mandate, and the narrowest is that used in contemporary politics today, called the Palestinian territories, which are the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

And why do you assume I wrote all the info you deleted? You make many assumptions, and therefore you make many mistakes.

And what non-neutral info do you think that I added to the Atlas? --Timeshifter 11:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU didn't read Palestine very well: Different geographic definitions of Palestine have been used over the millennia, and these definitions themselves are politically contentious.

I think it's enough clear for everybody, except for those guys which are here only for propaganda concerns. The term “Palestine” is incorrect to name any current political entity. So, conform to the names used by the English Wikipedia for the different subjects: Palestinian territories and Palestine are not interchangeable names. --Juiced lemon 12:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an atlas of both historic Palestine and the Palestinian territories. What do you suggest naming the Atlas? And you didn't answer my other questions.

Why did you do another blind reversion without discussion? You just tag-teamed someone else's mass deletion. That person also did not explain anything. Why are you going back to past habits that got you in so much trouble? --Timeshifter 19:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I copied the above discussion to Talk:Atlas of Palestine and Palestinian territories. Note the name change, too. Discussion continues there. --Timeshifter 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comics cats

Juiced lemon, would you have so time to create some order and structure in the Category:Comics and Category:Cartoons, especially with the many authors, series, countries, ... Moreover, they might be mixed up with some artistic and writers categories. Moreover, since many series have an international distribution with different names, this calls for some expertise. While pictures may be limited through copy rights, I see them appearing on many wall paintings, products, T-shirts etc...

There might be a need of a clear definition of series, cartoons, drawing editors, script writers, editors, ... I'd suggest to document that in a Cartoons and Comics article.

Thanks --Foroa 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand

Hello Juiced lemon. Please have a look at my entry on the talk page of the above cat. Cheers Ingolfson 06:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gramophone Company

My apologies for that incorrect move. Still learning. Ingolfson 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

categorys

So in what language were some of them? Creating categories with names that are half-Polish half-English is much worse than just Polish. Especially those names are completely unknown in Poland - ask someone with good knowledge of English in Poland about at least 3 those names ...

There is no policy on category names in link you gave - there is written So far, Categories are in English, not Categories should be in English or the only accepted language for categories is English!

I made a post on commons-l some months ago about why names of districts of countries should be in their local language - there is more eloquent reasoning for them - find it and read it. --WarX 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Improvements of categorisation

Hello Juiced lemon, I am trying to improve categories. Thanks for undoing my change of Category: churches in the Netherlands, that was a mistake of me. For Pitstone-windmill there is some anomaly about the picture and the category I tried to solve. You undid my changes too. Can you look to that more closely and give me an idea how to handle this anomaly?. Havang 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't unsderstand what you try to solve. I suggest you to improve categorization without undoing what other users have made. Example: sorting overpopulated categories. --Juiced lemon 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there were several overpopulated mill categories and many badly placed items, so I sorted almost all mills by country, some times by region, town or individual mill, and this diminished increadibly the number of items in the bigger categories; I also found mills not categorised bij searching al items Mühle, Wassermühle, Windmühle etc. Just go to my User contributions and you will see that I have run through over 500 mill items in the last three days and I am noy finished yet. So, if you want to join in.... Havang 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I am completely against the phylosophy proposed here of only categorising when the upper category is overpopulated. Thanks to courageous and hardworking people like Havang, it remains doable, but it is a real waste of good will and energy. --Foroa 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The best solution, thanksHavang 16:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Category policies

Hi Juiced lemon. I think we should stop all this mess, so I am planning some proposals for category structure. Unfortunately, I have no clue about the current category system and I think you do :) Could you point me to some pages about (proposed) policies that deal with categories? So far the only useful thing I have found is Commons:Language policy, but I doubt that is the only one. Thanks, -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:French books

Hello,

French books means books in French language, not books from France. The later is even wrong as many books were printed outside of French to avoid censure. Regards, Yann 10:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

“French books” means books printed in France, in any language. The category for books in French language is “Books in French”, like in Category:Maps by language. Note that the removal of move requests is uncivil. --Juiced lemon 14:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Situation Daejon.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Situation Daejon.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--YooChung 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Art in and of France

Art of France is the art of France, wherever it is. Art in France, is the art in France, whatevr the nationality of the artist. There can be "Art of Venice" in France, and Art of France in Italy. I think this is terribly simple. --User:G.dallorto 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

of/from

You're right, "of" is the standard for coa categories. However, there are often categories as Coats of arms of municipalities in XY. This is OK, because a municipality has always only one coa while the category:Coats of arms from Baden-Württemberg contains over 1000 ones. Of Baden-Württemberg only means the coa from the German state of Baden-Württemberg, from Baden-Württemberg means all coas from municipalities and former municipalities and different administrative divisions in Baden-Württemberg. We've choosed this solution for all of Germany. Greets--Notschrei 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. In my opinion, usage of preposition “from” is an aberration in this case (about coats of arms).

2. Commons:By location category scheme doesn't plan local exceptions.

If you disagree the move proposals, give your opinion in the concerned talk pages. --Juiced lemon 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that there are measures to standardize the category system on Commons. However, in this case, the preposition of is wrong. If I say the coat of arms of the city of Bonn I'm only talking about this coa. If I say the coat of arms from Bonn, I'm talking about all coas which the city and municipal districts of Bonn have got. We have users working with the area of German municipal coas for years and which support this solution. They won't be dictated related to category names by people who never have uploaded a single coat of arms.--Notschrei 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 --Polarlys 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 ! --Geograv 05:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Other countries have subdivisions and coats of arms for subdivisions. Germany is not a special case, and we don't need a particular scheme for Germany concerning the coats of arms.

Removing the move proposals is uncivil. If you disagree the proposals, you can restore the deleted contents of the pages, and discuss in the talk pages.

Uploading images don't grant skills in classification, and your comment is irrelevant. --Juiced lemon 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, as I stated already and demonstrated to you: the move cat (and seecat) procedure is a procedure that is bound to give conflicts and to the best of my knowledge, makes no part of the documented commons procedures. So please don't call the removal of the move cat and seecat templates uncivil.

If removing proposals is uncivil, then that is just what you yourself are doing since kingdom come! Do realise that you keep on kicking people against their legs again and again. If it was always the same people, you could argue they might be out to get you. But everytime I see a message on your talk page, it is about someone new complaining about how you messed up there well thought out schemes. IMO Notschrei's proposal is very logical and would apply not only to Germany, and even if it did, would be the logical thing to do to later easily retrieve information.

And btw, uploading images is NEVER irrelevant here on commons. If nobody uploaded or if you chase the (quality) uploaders, you'd be out of a job straight away. Us uploaders have a large say in how our free image are going to be categorized. Lycaon 06:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Juiced lemon, I have to admit that trying to harmonise things is not a very rewarding job, and there is always someone that will contest. The second part of an argument as "dictated related to category names by people who never have uploaded a single coat" is not really fair. Nevertheless, stating "Uploading images don't grant skills in classification, and your comment is irrelevant" is a slightly more civil way of saying "fuck you stupid" and will not help the case. The comments seems very relevant to me and other people, but I will not say to you: "Juiced lemon, your classification work don't grant skills in classification and your comment is irrelevant". So, I suggest to discuss and conclude here in a civil manner or take it at another level. --Foroa 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tasks which are useful to Commons project:

• before an upload to Commons:
  • draw an image
  • take a picture
  • record an audio file
  • find an existing media file with a free licence (possibly, negociate for it)
• upload a media file which is:
  1. in the scope of the project (that is with a free licence)
  2. not already in the database
  3. not obviously superseded by another file
• classify media files of the Commons database
• organize the Commons project
• write documents in order to help people to concur to the project goals
• check the compliance of people actions with Commons goals, rules, methods and customs

Perform a particular task, like “upload an media file”, don't grant you any privilege, or any skill you don't already own. --Juiced lemon 09:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Public services

Please see my response here: Category talk:Public services Ingolfson 06:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

French books

Bonjour,

Je pense au contraire que le premier critère pour un livre, c'est la langue, loin devant le lieu de publication. Yann 11:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

La cagégorie Category:Books of France n'empêche pas de créer Category:Books in French. Et puis, il y aussi Magazines in French, Newspapers in French, Comic strips in French, Posters in French, Prospectuses in French, etc. --Juiced lemon 13:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mills

I am about ready with improving this category. I'll follow this category a bit in the future. Do you have any suggestions for further improvement yet? Only the categories wind generators, wind parks, wind turbines, wind energy are stil to rearrange, also with respect to power plants parallel categories. Havang 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me some time to check it. I am afraid that the classification is language dependent there. --Juiced lemon 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put all categories in english, except for the names of individual mills. There were a few german categories, I have left unchanged Windmills in Niedersachsen(=Lower Saxony) and a bottom subcategory with Muhlestrasse but the higher categories again are in english. I mention you a double language category for spanish windmills (Moli di vento + windmills in Spain). Anyhow, the sorting out has been greatly done and bot-changes of category names are possible now. And I have added quite a number of not-classified mills. I know now better how to do categorisation here and at the french wiki (projet Pays-Bas). I see forward with interest what changes you find necessary to make. Havang 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Le classement s'effectue sur la base de sujets individualisés, en non d'après des entrées de dictionnaire. Nous ne pouvons conserver une Category:Mills regroupant des bâtiments/usines, des machines industrielles et des ustensiles de cuisine. Il faut retenir l'un de ces trois sujets pour “Mills” et déplacer les catégories relatives aux 2 autres sujets.

Les noms de lieux sont traduits lorsqu'un tel usage existe en anglais (se référer par défaut à la Wikipedia anglaise Main page). --Juiced lemon 11:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I let it to administrators to organise bigger changes like the mill/factory dilemma and like relocate inadequate subcategories.
• Concerning the use of languages: I do hardly ever change uploaders bottom category choices. Commons has a language choice for users by uploading. So, initially on commons, I choosed dutch by pictures destinated for nl:wikipedia and french by pictures for fr:wikipédia, before I found out that it was better to do all categorizing and commenting in english. (Wikipedia/wikicomons for new users goes by trial and error). Thanks to the mills exercise, I can now greatly improve categorisation of my own images of the Netherlands. Havang 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Art of Munich

Hello Juiced Lemon, There is a choice between Art of Munich and Culture of Munich. It depends on the category on a higher level which is in my opinion Culture by country and not Art by country. In the meantime I linked Sculptures in Munich (together with Statues, Fountains, Busts etc.) with Culture of Munich in stead of Facilities of Munich (???). Think about it, please. --Gerardus 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Main page

The text you have just removed from the main page was discussed at Commons talk:Meet our photographers#Main Page. Could I suggest that you discuss on that page if you don't agree? regards --MichaelMaggs 09:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this page don't suit me. See Commons:Village pump#Advertising in the main page. --Juiced lemon 10:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is now spread across four different places. That's probably not good. ++Lar: t/c 10:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I close this thread in my talk page. The discussion continues here: Commons:Village pump#Advertising in the main page. --Juiced lemon 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maps of Kurdish areas

Please see w:User talk:White Cat#Image:Kurdish Kingdoms of Corduene-Sophene.jpg. --Timeshifter 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. --Juiced lemon 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

I strongly suggest you revert less and discuss more. No one owns the category namespace. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 17:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. User:Timeshifter empties Category:Kurdistan from its contents, while this is an encyclopedic subject Kurdistan.

I don't own the category namespace, but I use move requests in order to make consensual moves. See Category talk:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions. --Juiced lemon 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

As set out in the en: article British Overseas Territories is the correct title. Man vyi 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. If you have arguments for the spelling with uppercase initials, request the move in the English Wikipedia, and add an entry in Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Juiced lemon 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mat Groening

I don't think "do you see any simpsons characters in this image" is a good enough reason. Really, what does it have to do with anything? My point is, why can't and image of the show's creator, be put in the show's category. Is there some kind of rule against this? Gran2 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule which forbids to categorize this picture in Category:Giraffa camelopardalis. However, since you cannot see a giraffe in this picture, it would be removed from Category:Giraffa camelopardalis if such thing happens: I'am sure you could find some connection between Matt Groening and a giraffe.

You'll find some guidelines about classification in Commons:Categories: find the most specific category that fits the file. Here, the most specific category is Category:Matt Groening, and this category is enough for that feature of the image.

Note also that classification needs knowledge of spelling and typography rules. --Juiced lemon 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Category versus page

Hello, in categorising mills, I come up with the problem that some people put related pictures in a page and remove categories from the individual pictures to only categorize the page. Is there a guideline for this? Havang 10:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but there is a guideline to prevent such harmful practice: see Commons:Categories. Relevant category(ies) must not be removed from the media files, unless there are replaced by better category(ies). It does not matter if the file is used one time or one thousand times in any page of the Commons project. --Juiced lemon 10:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we have come to an agreement. By the way, do you already have comments or advises on mill categorisation? Havang 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See above. --Juiced lemon 11:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving of User:Marmelad/Départements de France SVG

Hi. I just notice you moved the above page and marked as duplicate. I'm fairy new to commons, but these new pictures are vector versions and hence not duplicates. Or am I missing something? Regards, Marmelad 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Commons organization is explained in Commons:Categories. In particular, we classify media files according to separate structures, like the Category:Topics structure and the Media types structure.

Sometimes, a media type can be a subject itself, but generally, the tangle of these structures is harmful to maintenance and browsing in the Commons database.

We have already the gallery Départements de France and the category Category:Departments of France, so we don't need extra pages about the same subject. Any media file have to be categorized according to its relevant features in the topics structure, and the file type is generally irrelevant: each picture is choosed according to subjective assessment about their quality, for a particular use.

If your files are not already categorized, you can add them to Category:Locator maps of departments of France. --Juiced lemon 08:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what i did wrong. adding the vector images to the original gallry instead. will try and categorise them all as well. Marmelad 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Korean city/county categories

Hello, Juiced lemon! Thank you for your creating categories of Korean city/county. And when you create the categories, would you add their province name? For example, Bucheon city in Gyeonggi-do(Gyeonggi province), like Category:Bucheon, Gyeonggi-do. We can omit province name when the city is the Metropolitan City (Busan, Ulsan, Gwangju, and more). LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have an objection, please claim it. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have an objection, and I revert all of your edits. Then we'll discuss. --Juiced lemon 07:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please claim it here. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing non-consensual speedy deletion templates is not allowed. --Juiced lemon 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to discuss this on COM:CFD. Juicedlemon, you know better.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 08:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion templates need to be removed. --Juiced lemon 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of that. You start the discussion.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Juiced lemon 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't notice before that he's using rollback. Please start the discussion on COM:CFD, I'll bring it up on COM:AN, because this can easily become ugly. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 08:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

STOP

Stop removing the delete tags - you have provided no justification for your request despite my question. I am going to revert your edits until you provide justification to the community. I shall block you if you remove them again --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time

Rather than going crazy with the undo button, please use {{Cfd}}, and begin the public discussion. You have run out of warnings for revert warring. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't discuss when the house is burning. See my answer in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.

What User:LERK have done is beyond my acceptable limits, so I don't worry about any warning. You can prevent future edit warrings in abolishing the use of speedy deletion templates for pages, except in case of insultante names. It may be urgent to delete files, but we have always the time to delete pages. --Juiced lemon 10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are any of those categories left, please feel free to replace the speedy delete tags with {{Cfd}}. I don't have much time today, but I'll drop a note to Herbythyme as well (we can go through your deleted contributions to find them, so no need to make a list).

You shouldn't be arguing on the noticeboard. Argue your case here. I told you I'd work on it, and I will. Your responsibility is to discusss the issue. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lesbianism symbols, Category:Gender symbols, Category:Female symbols, Category:Venus symbols etc. etc. etc. etc.

Why did you establish Category:Lesbianism symbols , and then fail to include some of the most obvious symbols of Lesbianism which were already included in Category:LGBT symbols?? And why did you remove Category:Gender symbols from the two images which you did include in Category:Lesbianism symbols , even though not all symbols of Lesbianism are gender symbols??? Frankly, I'm far from convinced that your efforts in this general area are acomplishing anything in the way of practically helping people to better be able to find particular images -- which is supposed to be the purpose of having categories in the first place. AnonMoos 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The classification of these (LGBT) related subjects is under way. Note that lesbianism is a sexual orientation, not a gender. Therefore, lesbianism symbols are not gender symbols. --Juiced lemon 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If it contains a circle above a cross, in reference to females, then ipso facto it's a gender symbol. I wish I could be confident that these categories will be more practically useful after you're done with them then they were before you started doing stuff to them. AnonMoos 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your ‘ipso facto’ results from a wrong reasoning. The symbolism of a part of a symbol drawing is generally pointless. --Juiced lemon 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand your abstruse metaphysical pseudo-philosophical reasonings, and frankly I don't much care -- since the purpose of categories is to enable people to more easily find relevant images, as a purely practical and pragmatic matter, and NOT to implement your personal theories of metaphysics. Most ordinary people (as opposed to those who sit around debating at length how many angels can dance on the head of a pin) would say that if an emblem prominently includes a circle above a Greek cross or a circle with an arrow attached to its northeast quadrant, and refers to females and males respectively, then that overall emblem contains a gender symbol, and I really don't see how all your logic-chopping changes this fact in the slightest degree. AnonMoos 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories are software features, that is tools, and we use these tools for classification and browsing through the Commons database. The spread of media files in a lot of inane categories have never helped anybody to find relevant images: it only increases the consumption of computer resources and that is a waste of time for all users.

As the equals sign is not some kind of dash, a lesbianism symbol is not some sort of Venus symbol, even when you can see two Venus symbols in its drawing. So, the categorization of images like Image:Dubble venus.png in Category:Gender symbols is inopportune. --Juiced lemon 02:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that this reasoning will enable you to improve Wikipedia article en:A white horse is not a horse, but it does not appear to have enabled you to improve the practical categorization of Wikimedia Commons images in any useful or understandable way... AnonMoos 01:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

subCategory:coats of arms of families of France

Hello, my personal category-advisor. Can you look at the category:Coats of arms of families of France, subcategory of Category:Coats of arms of France. They use a model whith a line |catCOAof=families of France which generates both categories for every item, so the subcategory items go also in the higher category which contains thousands of items. Should this be undone and if, can this be done by a bot? I also have put a message at Template talk:Blason-fr-en-it concerning this problem. Havang 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whouw, like a magic trick, that small change cleans up a lot! Can you look after the template {{Coats of arms}} which includes category:coats of arms and most problaby shouldn't. May-be you know a similiar trick; be aware however that in this case there is a risk that items become orphans. Havang 08:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, template:Coat of Arms categorizes in Category:PD coat of arms definitions, out of the topics structure. To remove a picture with this tag from a Coats of arms of LOCATION category, you'll only have to delete the ‘LOCATION’ parameter. --Juiced lemon 11:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over to solve the template / category problem, I only will use [[Category:]] from now on. Havang 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Back_pain_due_to_corset_wearing

Category:Back_pain_due_to_corset_wearing This Category is either: correct or neutral.haabet 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you reformulate? I don't understand what you want to tell me. --Juiced lemon 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your Vandalism!haabet 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop to interfere with my work! And be civil! --Juiced lemon 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, please discuss and reach an agrement on how to do this, instead of reverting or accusing others of vandalism. Thank you, Finn Rindahl 13:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know his claims. --Juiced lemon 13:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to ask him on his user talk, please wait to do further reverts until he has explained his concerns. Thanks you, Finn Rindahl 13:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:PD coat of arms definitions

?? I fear a miscomprehension. What do you mean by these renamings? Is there a special heraldical point I missed & you were aware of? The things in the categories are not definitions, but pictures. Michelet-密是力 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have missed at least two things:

1. Category:Coats of arms is a category intended for browsing through the “coat of arms” substructure of the Commons database, but is not some overfill tank for lazy users (like most of top categories). Overcrowding of top categories uselessly overloads the servers and deteriorates the efficiency of any process in the database, including searching and maintenance.
2. The classification process needs to move media files from a category to another one (in the topics structure) as the Commons database size increases. Categorization by the means of templates disrupts this process.

Note that my current concern is the only topics structure, so I don't care (for the moment) of Category:PD coat of arms definitions, which is a category of the Copyright statuses structure. --Juiced lemon 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is category overload, OK (and agree), but the {{Coat of Arms}} has a "country" parameter intended to solve it (simply, it's not initiated, because I'm cleaning the category in the first place - no use to split if it is to be deleted). But IMHO, re-categorisation through a template won't split the corresponding category, so it won't solve the overload problem. Or did I miss something? Michelet-密是力 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My goal is to remove some categorizations made by templates in the topics structure and to replace them by classic categories.

However, I have to relieve overcrowded categories at first in order to ease maintenance.

That is what I did with template:Coat of Arms. Since you can find both template:Coat of Arms and correct classic categorization in the same file, I couldn't replace Category:Coats of arms with Category:Coats of arms to be classified. Category:PD coat of arms definitions is specific to the template, therefore my solution can't disturb anybody. --Juiced lemon 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as long as it's temporary - who cares? don't forget to tidy it up some day. Michelet-密是力 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat

Why you revert my edits ? Submarines are naval ships - and naval ships are in Category:Categories by country - then why you are doing something like that ? --Pmgpmg 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Submarines are naval ships, but are NOT “naval ships by country”. Category:Naval ships by country is intended for Naval ship of COUNTRY categories only, that is categories with the expression ‘naval ships’, and related to sovereign states. --Juiced lemon 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They are - they are "naval ship" and also they are "by country". And if you are change one category why you are not change another ? Category:Battleships by country and other? And if not in Category:Naval ships by country then where can i put that categories ? And if we have Category:Naval ships then we have also Category:Naval ships by class, Category:Naval ships by era - so they are also not "naval ships" by ERA and by CLASS ?

On Commons Users don`t write anserws on user page who ask ? --Pmgpmg 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll find some explanation in Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION. I remove any ‘category by CRITERION’ from a ‘category by CRITERION’ because this practice harms classification processes.

I also avoid to scatter parts of a same discussion. --Juiced lemon 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You now have the day off.

Next block will be longer. If you have a dispute about a category, you will start an entry on COM:CFD. If you engage in revert warring again, you will be blocked again. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What revert warring? I am not aware of any current problem and I don't understand your action. --Juiced lemon 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This. You have been repeatedly warned, and quite clearly warned by me. Disputes over categories should be discussed on COM:CFD. Reverting twice is 2 times too many. Keep your hands away from the undo button when your block is over... next time will be a week. You know better than this. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the reason you gave for the block: Intimidating behaviour/harassment. I discussed with user:Pmgpmg and explained the reason of my first revert. As he didn't pursue the discussion, I assumed that he accepted the explanation. So, my second revert is normal, and I have no regret for it.

That's you who harasses me at the moment. --Juiced lemon 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Intimidation" is actually a fair description of how you approach people you disagree with. I'm off to bed, see you in the morning.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is self-confidence, due to experience and knowledge about what I am doing. Maybe that makes some people to be intimidated, but I can't do nothing about that. “Intimidation” is a subjective assessment. --Juiced lemon 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Juiced Lemon, please knock it off. Apparently [almost] the entire Commons community has turned against your unilateral decisions, and revert-warring instead of discussion on CFD is making the whole thing worse. A lot of users have tried to calm this whole thing down and have continually tried to discuss category changes peacefully with you, but you don't seem to care about what others are saying. You may have the experience and knowledge about what you are doing, but unfortunately others don't, and would prefer categories that consensus have decided to name and structure. One user is certainly not consensus, and revert-warring certainly doesn't make it any better either. If you attempt to make another intimidating comment to anyone on this talk page, this page will be protected until this block expires. —O (说 • 喝) 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. I have never taken unilateral decisions against consensus. In the present case, I support the categorization system about the ‘by CRITERION’ categories that I have found when I opened my Commons account. As the classification processes are not intuitive, I have explained how it works in Commons:Naming categories.

I have no reason to initiate a new discussion in Commons:Categories for discussion as long as I don't notice any disagreement with other user(s) (that is the case presently). And I am enough experienced to suggest various solutions in order to satisfy user:Pmgpmg' concerns, as soon as I'll be aware of these.

More, what do you call “intimidating comment”? I didn't make such comment. --Juiced lemon 08:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to review this block via an email from Juiced lemon. Juiced: I'm not sure I could carry out a thorough review of everything that transpires before the block expires. But let me say this: whether or not the proximate cause is completely a "fair cop", Juiced, you have been warned about behaviours multiple times. I've seen some improvement but I've continued to see what I would characterise as unfriendly comments in some cases (and encouragingly, some cases where you're taking feed back on board... you need to do more of that and less arguing back that you're right) . Are your comments intimidating? Not in the sense that you threaten to come over and beat someone up, no. But if I were a newbie I would be put off (intimidated by the prospect of) communicating with you for fear of getting my head bit off. That's not good.

Look... Categories are a mess, a big mess, and we need many happy volunteers to make any progress. Your actions in part reduce the number of volunteers we have by running them off. I'd rather we get things mostly right than have a subsection perfect and a huge slushpile of very imperfect things. So the upshot here... I decline to overturn this block. Chalk it up to experience and to the community wanting you to take our feedback more seriously, wait it out, and when you come back, do as you've been counseled. Speak softly and gently and if there is a whiff of controversy, explain patiently (or refer to policy) rather than abruptly, ask for other opinions and abide by consensus even when you know it is "wrong"ly categorising things. Is that easy? No. It's really hard!!!! But you are a valuable contributor and we really really want you to try, because we'd rather not lose you. So please keep trying. I know you are trying, but you're not there yet. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy volunteers don't remain happy when they are blocked without valid reasons. And maybe I should not like to continue my contributions in this mood. That is why I asked some administrators to unblock me: the effect of the block is not the most important.

More, blocks don't solve problems, and the Commons project will not interest me anymore, if I am condemned to come across the same problems for eternity. --Juiced lemon 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

JL, see the warning above: "Rather than going crazy with the undo button, please use {{Cfd}}, and begin the public discussion. You have run out of warnings for revert warring." You also stopped discussing the issue in question the last time, moving on to reverting another user rather than finishing up with the folks who were trying to talk things over with you there. There are certainly some good possibilities in Commons:Naming categories, but it's quite clear that the community is not on board with it. You need to discuss and be a proponent of your ideas, rather than reverting people who don't agree with them, because as things stand now these are not policies.

You have been warned and counseled about this long enough. You have a long history of reverting people in this manner, and you've upset enough of them by now that you know people find it uppsetting when you do so. A lot of people have tried to work with you on this, and a lot of them are feeling disappointed, because they want you to continue to contribute. However (and as I have said before), I don't think your contributions outweigh the price you demand. If you want to improve commons by providing a logical and consistent category system, you should spend your efforts making policies so that anyone who wishes to categorize will know how to do it (that's how wikis work... everyone contributing a little bit in a coordinated effort).

No more reverting people who are not vandalizing, OK? I'm not kidding: if I have to give you another wikibreak, it will be a bit longer, because I have things to do too. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree to do not revert warring, but reversions are also normal maintenance operations, and you have blocked me only for a single revert, a simple maintenance operation, which has bothered a single user: YOU. You went too far and I cannot accept to be harassed by you anymore. The price you demand is too high.

I had began to write a new guideline Commons:Classification by topic, but the climate of violence you have created don't encourage me to put myself further into the Commons project. --Juiced lemon 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

JL, please do not leave this project. Your contributions and your insights in the category system are appreciated. I likewise fail to understand the rationale of this block. Greetings, --AFBorchert 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SB Johnny, Lar, Herby, Pftdayelise and others have collectively devoted hours, if not days, to this matter, time that could have been better spent. They have been patient and fair, in my opinion, over its long history. Please take the advice of those who have commented above to heart. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, was asked to review this block per e-mail. However, I can't in any way say that this block is an unfair warning and that is why I did nothing to unblock Juiced lemon. Samulili 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I do understand your desire to make things better. However, in communities we need to take more time before we can actually change some stuff. It can be a bore to have to wait for it and/or discuss it. Please take the time and it will make you even more effective, Juiced lemon. Cheers! Siebrand 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

re: User:Pfctdayelise/Commons:Guide to adminship

Hi,

I put a brief comment about preferring not to delete category pages, but I think I have made similar comments on other Commons pages anyway. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Double check on Category:Requested moves

Hi. Could you please double check if the entries in Category:Requested moves from A-T and beyond Z are correct and/or if you can add anything to the move requests? Not usre about those. Haven't come around to processing U-Z yet. Thanks. Cheers! Siebrand 22:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll check them. --Juiced lemon 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you stop to delete the category when you operate any move? --Juiced lemon 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your revert

This one. The Category:Electronic musicians is not used correctly and contains only one correct image, so it should be deleted. I've moved the one image that was correct in order to empty the cat automatically (see Category:Electronic music artists). Btw, I got a talk page. Regards, Code·is·poetry 10:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Electronic musicians contains only one correct image, but you don't give a reason to delete it: there is no minimal content to create or keep a category. You can still suggest a better category name in order to categorize the robot, but empty categories with correct names are not deleted, according to Commons policy: a category redirect template is added. --Juiced lemon 12:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I'm going to fix it. I'm sorry that you are blocked, it's not appropriate. Code·is·poetry 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Coats of arms

Hello Juiced lemon! OK not to put the Czechoslovak and Yugoslav coats of arms in the Category:Coats of arms by country. But then Category:Coats of arms of the Soviet Union does not belong there either (that one was already there). Fransvannes 10:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that the mixing of current states with former ones is confusing. So the ‘by country’ categories are only for current countries. You'll find a list of current countries in Commons:Territorial division of the World. However, this list needs some minor update, because the reference pages have changed.

There is not a well defined category for non-current countries: Category:Former countries, Category:Historic states? --Juiced lemon 12:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, blocked.

Despite the previous warnings, you have returned to your habit of reverting without discussing. You are now blocked for one week. When you return, you will need to agree to leave messages on the talk pages of users you revert, because it is simply unfair to treat them as vandals and undo their contributions. It is demeaning to good faith contributors when you do this, you have been repeatedly warned, and you need to make a much stronger effort when it comes to helping new contributors to help make commons a better place, rather than biting the newbies. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't treat other users as vandals, and it is not unfair to undo contributions which ignore Commons conventions, because there are simply too numberous and there are too few competent users about classification.

You are telling me: Each time somebody makes a mistake, spend twenty times the duration of a normal edit to correct the mistake. That is absolutely unworkable. Isolated reversions are not edit wars, and subsequent discussions cant dispel possible disagreements, but only when necessary.

Therefore, your obvious aim is to forbid me any activity in Commons project, because you block me without serious reason, and your requirements are unreasonable. You are inexperienced in this project, and you have no authority to harass me like that (that is currently your only occupation in Commons). --Juiced lemon 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, this is serious, and you need to understand that. It is not a waste of time to spend a few minutes explaining yourself to other users, particularly new users. The few minutes you take to explain yourself will in the end save your time if that user can categorize other pages more effectively. Alternatively, the categorization schema they are trying to employ might be just as valid as the one you insist on, but unfortunately you only hear their opinions when they end up leaving angry/disappointed/confused notes on your talk.

The reason this is a particular problem in your case is exactly because you fly through so many edits so quickly, without taking time to discuss the changes you've made with your peers. Commons, like all wikimedia projects, is a collaborative and consensus-driven effort. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 12:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion... why not, when you think you need to revert a particular category related edit, write out why. Do it on a subpage of your own user page. Then link to it in a post to the user's talk that you reverted it. That should save you time, and stil satisfy the need we all have, that you explain yourself instead of just blindly reverting. If you are good with javascript, you can even create javascript that will automatically insert the link and sign your name in one click when you are editing the user's talk page (see my monobook on en:wp for some examples of this). Because... Juiced... we realise you work hard and you mean well, but we just cannot have this unexplained reverting. We just cannot. It annoys others. Further, maybe if you were right and you explained yourself (carefully and patiently) then next time you won't have to undo stuff. I really really don't want to lose you but something has to give. If this happens again, your next block is going to be for even longer, or even indefinite. And I would really hate to see that happen. So take on board what others are telling you, please. PLEASE. ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Juiced lemon, I felt inclined to comment this block here. Regards, AFBorchert 13:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Lar, in my opinion, you don't realize how it can be annoying to systematically receive a message in your talk page when somebody think you have made a mistake. User:Jeff G. tried to develop such practice, and he stopped because the practice was rather unpopular.

Everybody can make a mistake, and can be aware of his/her mistake when another user corrects it. If you systematically insist on every mistake, you will become very unpopular. So, please, let me decide when a message is needed, when a comment in the summary is needed, when the revert is self-explaining. --Juiced lemon 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, a revert is never self explaining. Most of the time, I read an undocumented revert as: shut up stupid. Because I have a lot of patience, I try to find out the reason and the logic myself. But I guess to most people, this is just a plain insult. Undocumented reverts should generate automatically a red "no reason" marker in the edit summary, and frequent undocumented reverts should alert administrators.

On average, documenting such reverts are more efficient than tens of quick undocumented reverts followed by long discussions, complaints and potential blocking. --Foroa 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, indeed explanations can be helpful, yes. However, the absence of a summary line in case of a simple revert (i.e. no edit war) does not constitute an insult or a message like "shut up stupid". This would be in violation of AGF. Regards, AFBorchert 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I revert when I think that the previous edit(s) was (were) not useful. That doesn't mean nothing else. The summary is automatically filled when your make a revert, so you have room only for short comments. Short comments can be misinterpreted as well as no comment at all. Sometimes, you cannot properly explain your revert with a short comment, and I think it is best to not let an abrupt comment in the summary. We are not in a wild country, and we can still discuss in proper places. --Juiced lemon 15:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I read a revert without explanation as "your previous modifications are useless, stupid, wrong ...". This has nothing to do with "assume good faith". Personally I try to find out the rationale of the revert, but I think that for most beginners, this is a most frustrating experience. And if the other party uses the same logic to revert again, then you have the beginning of an editwar. It's just too easy to undo the works of the others by saying: if they don't agree with the reverts, they have to complain somewhere. Just too easy.

It's equally easy to shorten or remove completely the autogenerated revert comments in the edit summary to add whatever you want to add. If need be, rv takes only three characters of the available space. --Foroa 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is just how it feels when someone reverts you without a comment, and statements like "there are too few competent users about classification" more or less serve only to reinforce the impression of being told to "shut up, stupid." As I've said previously, Juiced lemon is a man --or woman... would you mind providing a clue to the proper prounoun Jl?-- with a vision, wherein all of wikimedia commons will someday have a consistent and useful category structure. The problem is that s/he's more interested in just imposing that vision, rather than convincing others of its merits. A visionary who's all guns and no ears is pretty much a w:vigilante, and vigilantism isn't tolerated in civilized cultures.

As sort of a side note, both Juiced lemon and AFBorchert have criticized me as being a more or less ignorant noob when it comes to categorization, and have pointed out that I don't personally do a lot when it comes to categorizing commons. All I can say in response is that (a) I do understand what Juiced lemon is trying to do, and in fact applaud him for it, and (b) I just don't really care all that much about the intricacies of the category structure (for example, when people recategorize images I upload or galleries I create, I'm just happy someone is taking care of things on that end, because I'm frankly a bit busy on Wikibooks and Wikiversity). In fact, my disinterest in the category structure allows me to be much more neutral here than most other admins. My only concern with Juiced lemon's actions is that they have historically caused an undue amount of aggravation for seasoned contributors, and have almost certainly chased away a number of new contributors. I'm also quite neutral on whether Juiced lemon continues to contribute here, because while I think his work is admirable, I don't think he's irreplaceable in the pursuit of that work. Commons will, sooner or later, have the level of organization that Juiced lemon aspires to. This is inevitable. It might happen a bit later without Juiced lemon, but Commons isn't going anywhere, and we have no deadline.

This one-week block was imposed after a quite explicit warning (see above somewhere) that if he returned to reverting without discussion, he would recieve a one-week block. I sincerely hope that this week can be spent constructively, so that we can find a way for him/her to engage with his/her peers and not feel like s/he is wasting time and effort by doing so. I'll even help develop some templates if they would ease the burden. However: if Jl returns to these behaviors after the block is through, the next block will be indefinite, and I strongly suspect that "indefinite" would in this case mean "a very long time".

The new heading below is intended as a worksheet for Juiced lemon and all others who wish to speed up the systematic organization of this project. Juiced lemon: just because you can't edit this week shouldn't stand in your way of improving the project. Discussion is key, and I'd like to read what you have to say.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SB Johnny, I'm still missing any justification of your block that is explicitly founded on the policies of this project. Maybe, I'm overlooking something. If this is the case, please enlighten me. But so far I get the impression that you have an idea about how JL's work can be done better and this is then enforced by warnings and successively longer blocks. The threat of an infinite block is already raised. See, you may be even right that something can be improved like, for example, by providing more elaborate summaries in edits. However, I do not think that this gives enough ground to block someone infinite who casually decides not to provide reasonings for reversals in the summary line. This is draconic and I do not think that this project is helped in any way by such threats that then everyone must face who wants to help out in the category system. I do not know any similar case in the English or German wikipedia where anyone was blocked just because of missing summary lines. This would be different, in my opinion, in case of ever repeating edit wars. But I do not see this here. Regards. AFBorchert 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi AFBorchert. I'm sorry if this seems draconian, but I (and quite a few others, it seems) feel it to be a necessary step. J.l. has indeed gotten into protracted edit wars in the past, and the only way it gets stopped is when someone steps in. A good deal of his reversions are also targeted at new users, who are perhaps a bit too daunted to get into an edit war, or worse don't know where to complain. His approach is clearly unfair to the new user, and it is unfair to ask the administrative staff to get involved every time he brings about an edit war. J.l. makes a lot of well-meaning edits, but he surely knows by now that certain kinds of edits that he makes do harm to the community. Marching ardently towards a consolidated and consistent category tree is admirable, but one needs to see the forest for the trees, and J.l. needs to understand that he really is causing harm, and take steps to avoid causing harm. What he is doing might (in his view) be good for "commons", but "commons" is a collaborative project, and it's important to respect the efforts of one's fellow collaborators. Taking a few minutes to explain something isn't much to ask, and someone who feels so misunderstood should make more of an effort at instructing his peers. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vigilantism is accepted in any society, as long as the law is respected. However your accusations of vigilantism are unfounded because my actions are custom practice for users which manage the classification of media files in Commons. In particular, I didn't enfringe any Commons rule and didn't bother anybody, except you.

Therefore, you have neither the authority, nor the grounds to block me. This block is illegal, that means that you lay down your own law, in other words you are acting as a vigilant.

If you think that I'll continue to voluntarily contribute to this project under your threat, you are dreaming. I respect other users more than most administrators, and I don't think you can help me to improve my relationships with other Commons users. Not with your methods. --Juiced lemon 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

J.l.: I told you a long time ago that I'm not here to save you, nor here to hurt you. I am, however, interested in protecting the ideal of consensus and the freedom of creativity that makes wikis grow and mature, and will do what I feel necessary to ensure that consensus and creative freedom rule the day. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If somebody wants to exercise its creative abilities, I think that classification is a wrong choice. I don't recommand copyright issues neither.

Classification needs rigour and method, and above all a global scheme. So, in my opinion, users who like this occupation want at first informations about our organization and our methods. In such domain, inventiveness is a lesser evil, because it is a mess factor.

So my policy is: prevent the mess, comply with schemes and rules, improve the organization in a consensual way. --Juiced lemon 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're on the same page here, just seeing the picture differently. The reason I've blocked you is because you had gone back to reverting, which makes a mess (not a mess for the structure of commons, but a mess for the community that builds commons). I'm also with you on establishing schemata and rules, but the schemata and rules you are insisting upon haven't yet been agreed upon. Improving the organization in a consensual way is exactly what we should be doing, but consensus takes time and effort, and you need to be a bit more patient and diplomatic: again, I applaud and admire you for the energy you apply to the effort, but you need to have a bit more patience when it comes to bringing people around to "the light", and in some cases you need to consider the possibility that even a newbie might have a good idea.

I will stick by you and take you seriously, but you need to return the favor. I realize it's hard to talk in a cool manner to someone you feel is doing you wrong.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First, AF, before you criticise this, you really really really need to review the history, there is a LOT of discussion and pleading with JL to change his/her ways that has led to this point. As Pfctdayelise and others have said, a LOT of time has been invested by everyone, we all know JL works hard and we have made allowances we would not make for just anyone. Your criticism here is not really very helpful. At all.

Second... JL, hear me and internalise this. Unexplained reverts of other valued contributors are unacceptable. Stop doing them. You need to take it to a talk page. That's not really a negotiable point. But you do have a point that it does take time to explain what the issues are. We all feel that is time that should be invested. You have a scheme in mind. Sell us all on it. Or at least explain it. Get it out there so that you can point to the principles and when you revert someone, be able to reference where the thing you changed was wrong and why.

Third, this may seem a bit out of left field, and I wouldn't do it without SB Johnny's approval (I don't tend to change blocks given by others without consensus...) but... JL, I'd be willing to commute your block to time served, this one time, IF you took my request (above, in my last post) on board, and put together some principles document, and some templates or canned text you can use to explain your reverts. Agree to that, and have that work be the first thing you do after being unblocked and I'll work hard to convince SB Johnny that you should be unblocked. But the line you take, below, where you buck back at the idea of explaining your scheme... does not make me hopeful. We're not threatening you. We're just telling you we are not going to tolerate certain aspects of your behaviour. You have to change or you will not be successful. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You tell me: Unexplained reverts of other valued contributors are unacceptable. Why not? However, to my knowledge, this is only the claim of 2 administrators against me.

If an unexplained revert is a reprehensible practice, that would be the case for any unexplained revert, made by any user. So, show me the Commons rule which deals with reverts, and I'll comply with this rule as any other Commons user.

If such rule don't exist and you don't care to write a new rule to sort out this issue, that just means that you are harassing me about a pointless issue, and I cannot accept such treatment.

I could create a page explaining the most recurrent mistakes in numbered sections, in order to easily access to the proper text from a 'code number' which would be supplied in summaries. But, this is an alternative amongst other ones. Above all, in my opinion, an isolated revert doesn't significantly differ from another change edit, and I don't recognize the pertinence of any measure focusing on isolated reverts. --Juiced lemon 09:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What lar and Johnny were trying to tell you was that unexplained mass reverts are unacceptable. I have to completely agree with them. —O (说 • 喝) 12:10, 28 September 2007 (GMT)

I am not blocked for unexplained mass reverts, otherwise you should define what are “unexplained mass reverts” for you. I have already stated that I'll comply to Commons rules, that is rules which every user have to comply. What do you want moreover? If there is some consensus about “unacceptable things”, make a rule about it, and I'll comply with this rule or leave. --Juiced lemon 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't rules lawyer, JL. We have spent a vast amount of time and energy trying to get you to understand what the many issues are here. I think you've exhausted the patience of many of us. What we want here is collegial behaviour first and foremost, not strict and belligerent adherence to the letter of specific rules. You're recent comments come off as too belligerent. You are rapidly running out of people who are willing to keep trying. I predict if you don't change your ways, and soon, in the ways that have been explained to you over and over, you will find yourself indefinitely blocked within a very small number of incidents. That may touch off an argument but I predict it will be sustained. It will be a shame to lose your contributions but I feel more and more folk are considering that, on balance, it's not worth trying any more. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, focus on what you want to tell me, and don't waste your time to describe the tortures of hell, because you are just disgusting me for contributing to this project.

I don't understand very well what you mean by “collegial behaviour”, but I am sure that SB_Johnny have neither a collegial behaviour, nor a behaviour which can be useful to the Commons project. And I don't recognize the legitimity of blocks from an administrator who don't deign to point out the definite reason of his actions, because such reason don't exist.

I agree to respect Commons rules and goals, I agree to be respectuous towards the prerogatives of other users. If, in spite of that, you consider that some of my actions are harmful, the best is to discuss about the problem, and to find friendly the best solution for the project.

Block an user for a vague reason, without reviewing the possible issue, cannot bring solutions. --Juiced lemon 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in Categories

Juiced lemon, please take some time to discuss this while you're not distracted by correcting categories. I'm genuinely curious about what your overall vision is, so please don't misinterpret this as "busy work", etc.

1. Can commons have "parallel" category schemes? By this I mean several category trees existing side-by side, rather than forcing all of our contributors to follow one particular method. It strikes me that there's no particular reason why a gallery or image couldn't be in 10, 20, or even 100 categories (even categories in different languages!), so long as someone can find what they're looking for when they're looking for it.
2. Is there anything wrong with categorizing things following local dialects or languages? For example, you recently undid a category that was "landforms of <some state... I forget>", and put the images into "geography of <...>" (actually it should have been geology, but that's water under the bridge). "Landforms" is in fact a term used in the Western US, (presumably because there are some really strange land-forms out there), and such a category would have been useful to someone searching using that term.
3. If you have serious problems with parallel categorization, please say why, and describe in detail what you think the unitary category scheme of Wikimedia Commons should be. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting questions. However, I have wasted all my available time grounds to your unfriendly block. I'll answer you when my account will be unblocked. --Juiced lemon 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

J.l., if you are unwilling to hold a discussion when you have no other option, how can the community believe that you will discuss when you have other options? You can use these 7 days to find a constructive way of contributing, or you can waste them emailing every admin on commons asking to be unblocked. I assure you that there are a lot of people watching this page, so please take the opportunity to stand on the soapbox. If the worst case scenario happens and you find yourself indefblocked, the audience will likely be much smaller. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Juiced Lemon merely following our current policies on categorization? / Fred J 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, you said me: if you are unwilling to hold a discussion when you have no other option. This assertion is contradictory, therefore wrong. Don't try to deduce any conclusion from a wrong assertion: that's unfair.

The community will believe that I can discuss when I have other options, because I 'll answer your questions when my account will be unblocked, while I could ignore them. --Juiced lemon 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. If you change your mind, this page is on my watchlist. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My answers

1. Can commons have "parallel" category schemes?

No. You cannot have "parallel" category schemes, when you cannot neither restrict your visibility to a particular category scheme, nor isolate the different schemes (that is to forbid relationships between these structures by means of categorization).

2. Is there anything wrong with categorizing things following local dialects or languages?

Yes. Media files are categorized according to subjects. If you use different languages for the naming of the subjects, you cannot anymore control the subjects, or the relationships between subjects. Maintenance and browsing in the database would be affected.

3. If you have serious problems with parallel categorization, please say why, and describe in detail what you think the unitary category scheme of Wikimedia Commons should be.

You can have 2 kinds of “parallel” categorization:

1. synchronized categorization: each time you change a relationship between 2 subjects, this change is automatically repeated, so that the diagrams of all “parallel” structures remain identical one another. Such system is equivalent to an unitary category scheme, for which you'd associate to each subject an ordered set of alternate names.

2. non-synchronized categorization: Commons1, Commons2, Commons3 and so on: one storage, but different rival organizations.

In each case, the Mediawiki software would be updated. However, I support the unitary category scheme, because it is in best accord with our human resources. --Juiced lemon 19:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions from an innocent volunteer trying to make things understandable

I have been trying to make some sense of the dam(s,) rivers and other stuff listed for Arizona. I am also moving images from wikipedia to here. You are undoing some of the work I did. My problem with this is that I don't understand the undoing and wonder the reason you undo things without mentioning it to me on my Talk page or something. I am quite new here.

There are a serious amount of rules and guidlines about how the commons work. I very might have made a mistake by just thinking through things myself. For example Silver Lake. There are very very very many Silver Lakes in the United States. I think that there are two in Michigan alone, so even making a category Silver Lake, Michigan is going to be confusing. So I started to make categories of water bodies with the state included in the category name.

Also, I have another question. Are there more policy makers. quality and featured picture opinionators and category deleters than there are workers? If so or if not, what do you think the reasons for that answer is? carol 02:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

btw, do be sure to fix wikipedia where I tried to do all of the work that seemed to be well thought out in the suggestions guidelines while you are at it.... -- carol 03:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Carol, I am one of the many (initial) innocent volenteers like you. Most people here are extremely busy entering and categorising media. There are very few policy makers. quality and featured picture opinionators and category deleters, as most people, just like you, try to get their job done and stay away as far as possible of all sorts of fuzz and discussions. Just because of the high priority on the job itself, there is little time for "community work". The problem is that the few people that try continuously to keep the commons organised and tidy collide all the time with users that tend to be quite grumpy as they are just too busy. There are about 3000 new pictures per day that have to find their place in a category system that is still in its puberty, so after all, the "noise" could be much worse (but a lot better too). --Foroa 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Foroa, Thank you for responding on juiced' talk page to me! I have a different sense of tidy, perhaps. Simple, easy to maintain and kind for less educated users and contributors. Those galleries -- my first warning here was a good one perhaps, it was about how the commons stores images and other media logically but does not itself provide the encyclopedic information that might be associated with them. To contribute to one of those galleries, say one of the galleries for a common plant that can be found in United States, a contributor must have perhaps a Phd-like understanding of the soon to be aniquated biological hierarchy of plant classification. I only memorized the words in that system that I needed to know so that I would not eat something that would kill me, and those memorized words are leaving me via time and trial since then. To me, tidy is something that works well and easily. I am going to continue to make only Category's and Image pages because, almost everything that is necessary can be displayed there completely without disambiguation. This practice will either stay as it is or give people with nothing better to do something that feels and seems better and then others can come and unduly undo that and the whole system can be re-arranged again and soon there will be only one or two police and they can arrest each other for crimes against their personal agendas -- or whatever.

Everything changes but everything stays the same. Humans are funny things. -- carol 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Carol, at the moment, we don't have (in Commons) our own guidelines about disambiguation. We should write these guidelines, but beforehand we have to find temporary solutions for disambiguation cases.

So, my current practice is:

• to do not add suffix to custom names without a proved disambiguation case
• generally, the page names in the English Wikipedia take in account disambiguation cases and comply with their disambiguation guidelines. So, you have little chance to mistake when you name a category according to the name of an English Wikipedia page (example: Stewart Mountain Dam)
• when there is no page (or mention) about a given subject in the English Wikipedia:
  • proper names of settlements and permanently located man-made objects: comma method
  • other cases: parenthesis method

You'll find some links to Silver Lakes in this disambiguation article: Silver Lake.

Concerning your other questions, I cannot identify a definite problem based on facts. Please, reformulate them and focus on specific issues which bother you. --Juiced lemon 10:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation pages are indeed helpful and the gallery pages are very pretty, however, when I am looking for an image to use from a certain category, I generally type the word into the search box, hit the enter key (which I am certain causes me to "Go", the search almost always sends me to a gallery page which is not as maintained and more informative than I needed (because better information is to be found at other wiki) and I almost always click through to the Category where I can more easily find what I need.

Disambiguation pages that are unneeded and extra work for contributors and users alike are well, unneeded and extra work for contributors and users alike. And confusing. Also obfuscating.

City_Name_(State_Name) is just wrong. It is wrong on all counts. I think you were wrong to suggest it even, but thankfully, my opinion is not required, requested or probably even welcome. I do know that it would have caused red marks on any text that I turned in for any homework at any point in my secondary plus United States public school education experience. It might even be exactly what it looks like, a nobrainer horse invented by a committee and I will not ride that beast and wonder the reason that you ride it.

Thanks for your help and that you got back to me to help me understand these issues. -- carol 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I made a template with the Wikipedia logo in order to point out a link to a Wikipedia article.
2. A city is a sort of settlement.
3. Your opinion is welcomed, but don't help me at the moment. --Juiced lemon 23:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, this ought to be kind of fun to think about. Michigan has a village called Mackinaw City. I just sat there looking at the sign and shaking my head because it is Mackinaw City Village and to make matters even worse, the spelling of the Village name is the way that Mackinac Bridge is pronounced and often misspelled. Mostly, it left me feeling unsettled so that City Village was not a settlement, at least it wasn't to me. -- carol 06:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I grew up less than 50 KM from Mackinaw City and the Mackinac Bridge, which spans the Strait of Mackinac, if there are any particular questions I can answer, let me know. There is a history behind the variant spellings and pronounciation quirks... see also Fort Michilimackinac ++Lar: t/c 08:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An admirer

I really love your stylized signature thingie! -- carol 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I only spent enough time with my signature to make it look like my signature from the ChaosComputerClub Camp Twiki 2003 where I was working with User:radar to make wiki's work better. -- carol 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you use something like this?

subsection 1

I mentioned making templates before... here's a simple one: User:SBJ/JL1. You yould use it like so:

{{subst:User:SBJ/JL1|<problematic category>|<preferred category>}}~~~~

I can make a few more specific ones if you like (discussing the in vs. of variables, the "disambiguation issues", language issues, etc.). I'll make them if you'll use them, but keep in mind that you should use these in lieu of reverting changes. Let the other user have time to (a) fix it themselves, (b) ask you to fix it, or (c) bring it up for public discussion. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need above all a guideline about the modifications of category structures. In my opinion, this guideline would favour the stability of the structures.

I don't like messages in talk pages, because:

• few users are regular ones
• more than one user can be concerned
• the repetition of canned messages is annoying

--Juiced lemon 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a canned message is better than none at all... it's your failure to communicate with others that has gotten you into trouble so many times. I personally don't see why people (including you) get so angry about categories, but they do (and quite often it's you that they get angry at).

My goal in making these templates would be for you to have a "minimal keystroke" way of dropping notes to users who are, after all, just trying to help. Sometimes their efforts might be (at least in your view) counterproductive, but taking a few seconds to plop a friendly (if canned) message on their talk page can go a long way towards disarming hostile feelings. It could also help attract people to policy proposals, because I agree with you whole-heartedly that we need a policy on the category structure (I don't think a guideline will do it, to be honest). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

People get angry about categories because administrators delete them. Cunning users empty categories because they know that some administrators delete empty categories, without paying attention to their usefulness. This practice don't comply with Commons policy: Commons:Deletion guidelines#Categories. If you can curb that, you'll get cooler users regarding to category issues. --Juiced lemon 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there: the goal I'm pursuing is how to keep people from getting angry at you in particular. I strongly advise you to help me towards achieving that goal, because you're very close to being indefblocked (not necessarily by me).

Here's the situation. You have a history of the following:

1. You revert or otherwise undo someone else's contributions without telling the person why. This wouldn't be bad if you just undid one edit, but your pattern is to undo a bunch of edits by a given user, so my guess is that you're following their contribs and looking for similar "counterproductive" edits.

2. Because you did not take the time to leave a note, the other user either (a) has no idea that you did it, (b) they get frustrated and leave, (c) they ignore it or don't notice it (and perhaps go right back to making similar "counterproductive" edits in other parts of commons), (d) they leave an angry message here on your talk page, and/or (e) a bilateral or multilateral edit war starts up (keep in mind that #1 is for all intents and purposes a unilateral edit war).

3. If (c) or (d) happens, an administrator ends up having to step in one way or another.

4. The user gets frustrated and stops editing, or you get blocked (or perhaps both).

That first stage is absolutely in your court. You can't control how stages 2-4 go, but you do have control over that first stage, should you choose to do so. And that first stage is where I stopped you this time, and will stop you next time too. I will help you avoid that (not because I'm your friend or anything, but because I'm tired of seeing this get to stage 3), but I'm not going to make it a full-time job. It's not a lot to ask, and if anyone gets annoyed by the canned messages, you can (and should) blame me for it. Sound good? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, the only one I ever saw complaining about deletion of empty categories was you, so that's next the question.

Most of the time, I admire your edit summaries; you are probably the one putting most efforts in edit summaries from the whole community. So I fail to understand why you cannot produce a similar edit summary following a short reason in stead of hitting blindly the undo/save button. So tell me, if you hit the undo button without mentioning a reason, and the author of the change that you just reverted does the same, what should happen next ? --Foroa 18:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, your guess is right: sometimes, I look at the contributions of a particular user to revert edits with the same wrong bias. In this particular case, there is some logic to inform this user about the reason(s) of this bunch of reversions.

As you accept the responsibility regarding to the choice of the information method, I agree your proposition in such cases.

However, there are numberous other cases for which I make a lot of edits (including reversions) without identifying a particular user. It seems to me impossible to manage a large set of edits and check if the same user may be concerned several times.

So, I wish that you'll moderate your aggressiveness towards me, if your intention is just to limit the cases for which an administrator intervenes. --Juiced lemon 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you do... that's why you're so valuable to us! If you notice a pattern of that sort (i.e.: a series of similar edits that need correcting), you of course go to the contribs and see if it's a problem that may be spreading to areas you didn't happen to be watching or working on. I'm a Checkuser elsewhere, and that's how I find sockpuppeteers :).

But here's the thing: in cases where you do go through the contribs and notice that they are perhaps misguided, it would be much more efficient over the long term to just bring it to their attention (in a friendly (if canned) way), so that they can know better next time (because you or another category maven might not notice what they're doing later on). This would also prevent "stages 2-4", if you follow me. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh just to clarify on that last point: when it get's to stages 2-4, that means that people are spending time and energy arguing when they could possibly be doing something else (perhaps even something productive). So when you don't take a minute or two to explain yourself, that minute or two that you saved might end up costing a lot of time for other people, and making other people spend their time because you didn't want to spend yours is disruptive.

So that's what I'm trying to do with the template thing: to let you spend a few seconds (rather than a minute or two) in order to avoid a situation where others have to spend time. What I need from you is a list of the most common errors you run across, so that I can make specific templates that you can use for specific kinds of errors. If you can provide me with a list, I'll make the templates for you (no offense, but my english is a bit better (and I'm more tactful that you), so it's probably better if I make them). If you provide me with that list, and promise to use them, I'll remove the block. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the section Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Details. I noticed that you have blocked me for a specious reason, because I have not infringed your warnings. The series of edits you have listed were made without conflict or hostility towards User:CarolSpears, so I find your block particularly unfair.

I have also read the previous section Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Seeking a workable, long-term solution. Do you really think that I contribute to Commons to get stressed?

I agree to provide you a list of most common errors made by users, but I am not in the mood for doing that at the moment. More, it is easier to establish this list when you are making edits. If you think I am valuable for this project, you would have some confidence in me. --Juiced lemon 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(← tabs reset)

Well, when it comes to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Details, I'm afraid you did. Read my warnings again: they're all about not using the undo button, and in fact I even said that twice was too many times. And you had been reverting people before yesterday, but you were using edit comments (those aren't really the issue, but since I had given the warning in that language, I decided to just stick by it).

J.l. I know you didn't revert her edits out of malice. I have absolute faith in your good faith, and honestly I don't think you would ever intentionally hurt someone. But it's also very clear to me that you don't realize how hurtful you are when you "roll back" someone's contributions like that. Anyone who "knows you" knows that you are editing in good faith: that's why we've been trying so hard on your behalf! The problem is that not everyone knows you, and when you upset them it becomes our problem. I don't think you intentionally cause problems, but the fact is that you do, and it's really unfair of you to continue causing problems that are paid for with the time and energy of others.

As far as Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Seeking a workable, long-term solution goes: I'm just fishing for ideas there. But I think a set of rules like that could be of benefit to you, me, and the community at large. For you, the benefit would be being able to do your work without always wondering if some angry person was going to go after you, and perhaps even move your "reputation" from being "a good contributor, BUT..." to "a good contributor".

So look: you don't want to waste time explaining yourself, and I don't want to see the community's time wasted because you don't want to "waste" time communicating. I will (productively, IMO) spend some of my time making a few templates for you, if you'll agree to use them rather than going on revert sprees. It's not a lot of work (for either of us), and you might be surprised by the benefit. So how's this: can you try it my way for one month? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

“Twice” is understood as two reversions of the same file, otherwise it is an extravagant request.

I agree to try to use your templates during one month as an alternative to summaries when I focus my interventions on a particular user's edits.

However, I don't agree with any personal set of rules: I think it would be incompatible with the spirit of the project and with my involvement. --Juiced lemon 21:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for a "personal set of rules" elsewhere, across many many wikis. (en:wp arbcom for example has 1 revert per week per article rules that apply to some, etc) We're offering you a personal set of rules as an alternative to just blocking you outright, indefinitely. Not because we are out to get you or because we personally have it in for you, but because we want you to stay. Juiced, it has gotten that serious... either accept this personal set of rules (or work with us to find an acceptable alternative) or the blocks will escalate, as I predicted above. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

subsection 2

Lar's right, "personal rules" are sometimes made, but only for people who are both valued contributors and have a history of being involved in conflicts... you're one of those elite few (marginally productive users who get involved in as many conflicts as you do are just plain banned). So here's a deal for you.

Your promise:

1. If you notice a pattern of problematic categorizations, you should try to see if there is a particular user that is at the root of that pattern.
2. If it does turn out to be one user causing the dischord, you will agree to leave them a message on their talk (canned or otherwise) expressing your concern, and suggesting a better way. You will do this instead of reverting, and if they do not respond after 36 hours, you should feel free to revert any of their edits if there is a good reason to do so.
3. You will not knowingly revert the same user 3 or more times without leaving them a message.

My promise:

1. If you keep your end of the bargain and still get into a scuff, I'll make sure you have the opportunity to have your say.
2. If you fail to keep your end of the bargain, the 1-week block starts all over again.
3. If it turns out that you weren't intentionally reverting the same user 3 or more times, you're in the clear unless it happens more than a few times. I'll take your word on this.

Deal? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 00:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You have blocked me two times without valid reason:

• the first time for this single revert [5], though I had previously discussed with the concerned user in my talk page User talk:Juiced lemon#Cat, so the issue could be regarded as settled: one day block
• the second time for this series of 13 edits: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Details, with only 5 reversions. The concerned user was a newbie, so a conflict was highly unlikely: one week block

As I already said you, these blocks are illegal, since I didn't infringe any Commons rule, and because I could manage any risk of conflict or disagreement.

You have clearly misused you administrator abilities, so don't ask me to recognize the legitimity of more abuses as part of a deal.

I don't accept a personal set of rules because no new event justifies new measures against me. You have just make up imaginary problems, that explains why you cannot write a Commons rule about them.

You threaten me with an indefinite block: for which reason? in the past, I was involved in many conflicts, mainly because there were no other efficient ways to boost the classification process, and to outline some harmful practices or the disrespect of Commons policies. The last developments of this discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/07/Category:Soccer in England & Category:Soccer in Scotland show the excessive difficulty to take consensual decisions in this project. The administrators assume the right to control the project, even if they don't significantly contribute.

I think that most of these conflicts have been useful to the evolution of the project. I cannot regret them, because the results of my actions are patent for anybody who reminds how was the organization of the topics structure one year ago.

I am continuously searching better ways to improve the working in Commons, and that includes search for best relationships with other users. If you have valuable propositions, they would be applicable to any Commons users, and you would not use coercive ways to enforce them.

Relationships are based on mutual confidence: if you don't trust me, I'll not trust you. You don't need my autorisation to block any user, and I'll not give you such autorisations under threat.

I agree, during one month, to give the reasons of my reverts (except isolated ones):

• either in the summary
• either with a message in the talk page, when I focus on a particular user, or when I see that a particular user is concerned by several reverts I made during a short period (2 hours). --Juiced lemon 12:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

subsection 3

J.l., debates are useful. Frustrating your fellow users because you don't think it's worth the time to discuss why you undo their work is harmful. Edit summaries are good, but not adequate for this.

Your options are to accept these terms now and be unblocked, or have these terms imposed on you after your block runs out on Thursday. This is a collaborative project, and everyone is expected to collaborate. All that you need to do is just make a small effort at communicating, so that you don't end up on one of the admin userboards again (if you do, you will almost certainly be blocked permanently, unless it's very clear that you were brought there unfairly). The reason I'm saying to try it for a month is that I suspect you might be pleased with the results: I can't imagine you enjoy being the target of so much anger. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right: I don't enjoy to be the target of anger from other users. Conflicts were a necessity which I didn't necessarily enjoy.

Concerning your repeated threats, you forget that I contribute to this project only because I feel some intellectual pleasure to do that. You can examine this set of contributions and notice long periods without edits, which were deliberate periods of inactivity. So, I can again admit that time spent in Commons don't grant me enough benefit.

I have agreed to make efforts at communicating, at least, during one month, in giving the reasons of my reverts (except isolated ones):

• either in the summary
• either with a message in the talk page, when I focus on a particular user, or when I see that a particular user is concerned by several reverts I made during a short period (2 hours).

I'll also try during this month to fit with your propositions, but they seem to me currently unworkable, that is they should be refined and tested without the threat of sanctions.

In any case, I'll never cover up abuses of administrator abilities. You'll keep full responsability of any of your actions, good or bad ones, and of their consequences. --Juiced lemon 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a take it or leave it thing (or more accurately, an "agree to it now or have it imposed on you later" thing). If it turns out to be too arduous after one month, perhaps we can talk about changing it then (in November). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Review what you have done: you have no matter to be proud of that, and I have offered you an advantageous proposal. --Juiced lemon 10:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I think it may not be very useful to try to cast doubt on SB's block. He laid out the matters that caused concern and no one has subsequently said it needs overturning. I think you need to focus on what the community is telling you, we're about out of patience and this offer is a lot closer to take it or leave it than I'd be comfortable with, were I you. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you found something which could make you think I am a weathercock? SB_Johnny and you are not the Commons community. If you want to talk to me, do it in private until my account will be unblocked. --Juiced lemon 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think that SB and I are the only ones who feel this way just because we are the only two to have commented today, I believe you are mistaken. Review the history of this thread, and the many many before it. There are many voices reiterating what has been told to you for months. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "offer" sounds pretty much like what you've been doing (except that you might sometimes leave a note on the other user's talk). The 2 hour thing is rather odd as well. If it works out, then that will be fine. If things flare up again and a look at the contribs and history shows you either edit-warring or mass-reverting a particular user, we'll be back here again, and the next block will be "as long as it takes" (i.e., indefinite, but not necessarily permanent) to get you to agree to a way to avoid these situations in the future.

You are now unblocked. Please make every effort to avoid the need for further moderation. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record JL Johnny & Lar are not on their own here. I have defended you in the past where others behaviour was unacceptable but I have also warned you about your behaviour more than once --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested busy work

1928 looks stupid and unnecessary while Category:1928 looks really cool. Perhaps people with a personal agenda to make galleries out of Category could spend a lot of their waking hours changing those years from cool category into cool gallery.

Just a thought! -- carol 23:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Galleries and categories are 2 different and independent ways to display media files about a given subject. We could do without galleries, but some users prefer them. Galleries can also be named according to local names.

In my opinion, the village pump would be more appropriate for such talk. --Juiced lemon 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else was changing things I had done, the only other communication that I get is from a bot showing me where I forgot the license or did not paste it correctly and from you, on my watchlist. Since May of 2003 it is a very very very cold world filled with mostly rude opinions, thieves and people who cannot do things. Someone following my contributions and changing them is actually somewhat affectionate (if that is what was happening) compared to the rest of the cold faceless anonymous world that I am often sorry I ever thought I could make better by contributing to it. -- carol 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel also that this project needs some humanity. However, I am not very fluent in English, so I discuss rather about technical issues in this language. --Juiced lemon 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

confessions

I just uploaded a photograph claiming to be of Ponderosa Pines. I was in a hurry and I love software (I particularly like this software, how if you put an image into a Category it makes something that looks like a gallery of that and other photographs with very little effort). I put the image into Category:Pinus even though a perfectly good Category exists for Ponderosa. There is a conflict of galleries and Category there in Category:Pinus and I wanted to undo all of the gallery and make them into Category. So this is the nature of my confession -- that I think that it is better to work with the software than it is to make everything by hand. How about if I start to paste every single Category that I find here that doesn't live up to whatever it is that you are trying to achieve here. If by some known only to me time, you have not wrestled those Category into gallery then I will gently move the gallery into Category (not because I dislike you but because I really love this software). It seems to me that a lot of people are capable of using the software while only a few are capable (and willing) to make galleries (or fake Category, if you will) that live up to these other standards, where ever they are.

Thanks for your time and do let me know where I should note those Category that meet my ideals but not yours -- carol 06:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are searching some automatized tool in order to categorize media files found in a gallery in a new category or in an existing one. I should like to answer your question, because such tool would be very useful to me. I suggest you to post your request in the Village pump. --Juiced lemon 15:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A few minutes later, I remember what started this. I started to work on making Category:Salt River Project which I found to be an interesting subset that contained many very beautiful image of dams, lakes and reservoirs in Arizona and rivers that crossed state lines. I started to do my own thing there and to those images. You undid some of that work. -- carol 21:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was more like I had a few mindless (my mind missing) days ahead of me and I wanted to see how much of the collection of images found at this U.S.Forest Service Database I could snarf and upload here. It would be much better to automate this and use the large images that the web site claims to have and then spend the human hours fixing the images. Most of them are really nice, some of them are simply incredible! One thing about being your own tool is that you get to find things like:

• 
  1931
• 
  1968

It was all I could do to not stop the (small)mass(es) upload and remove the stamp mark from the 1938 photograph. It would be a wasted effort though since there should be a higher resolution image available. Just as these last few days of uploading these images was a waste. It is a sad and wrong world though, where when you show you can find people and get tasks (like automating this process) accomplished that it causes you to start over with little troll-like morons with no experience like this telling you that you have not accomplished things and that years of being alive mean nothing. This is the reason that I will not go to the village pump. I even suspect that the task of automating this upload was "assigned" about 12 hours ago. Was it assigned to you, btw? What are you good for?

I ask that with the knowlege that I am probably good for some tutorials about how to fix these images and also fixing some of them. I am not going to be good for making gallery when making Category (and using disamibuation pages to point to them) is so much more efficient. I found a Category last night, I can't remember which one, that was made to match the wikipedia City Name (State) convention but the wikipedia entry with the same name had no mention of the commons page. Too many steps for silly, over thought out reasons. It seems to be the nature of large user base projects that there will be a few loud people who make terrible changes while the pack still works another way. There should be an inbetween where the pack can have it easy and the loud opinates can stfu. -- carol 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am good in organization/classification. It's too late for a verbose answer, so for the moment I advise you to follow the information links in my user page. Maybe you'll find things of some interest. --Juiced lemon 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

I'm not done with you, sorry

I should be done with you, and I think that you even asked me to be done with you, but I am not.

Category Links from your User page

That is good stuff, thank you very much for those. I think (after looking quickly at them) that I wasn't doing such a terrible job as I mostly tried to fit the new images and new Category into the existing eh, structure here.

I had a thought while I was reading them about how the strong feelings that happen here are not so much about right and wrong but about conventions that our teachers (and other elders in judgement of us during our youth) insisted upon as everyone was learning. I think about this kind of thing when I watch road traffic with dozens and sometimes hundreds of cars sharing the same roads at almost the same time and each vehicle on its way to a different destination. I am so surprised that the roads are so safe, when you consider it. It is the same such a miracle that so many of our teachers were at least insisting on similar things/ideas to everyone. That being said, all of those teachers who somehow managed to maintain an active image of themselves in my brain/memories scream "Don't do that" when I see things like Category:National Forests being changed to Category:National forests. No wrong or right there -- disapproval and marks on the list of your accomplishments make that feeling. It feels wrong deep in the parts that they made when they formed me. The local laws said that I should be there so that they could do that and I enjoyed it (school) immensely.

I am an organization categorizer wannabe

The Dewey Decimal System did me in. F=ma actually saved me. I am jealous of people who can do this. The closest I came to being able to do this was with astrology, but it only works when people don't lie about their age/birthdate and then you only learn stupid things like Virgo's have wide feet and Aries only think about what they are going to do when they get there -- not how they will get there and Taurus have a lot more money than even they know (because they conveniently forget it). Useless! Because the knowing does nothing to help.

So I am jealous. There was a cartoon that was on television in United States in the 1990's. Dr. Katz. He was a psychologist for standup comedians. He had a secretary Laura who in one episode declared that she could "Label anything". She had a little label making machine and throughout that episode, proceeded to label everything. The doctor's son (who had a huge crush on her) challenged her by saying "No you can't" to her "I can label anything". She then labeled him "No" and continued with her work.

I am jealous like that. 20 years ago, I would have thought that Commons:Image classification system was cool. Now I think it is inhuman. What do you think changed in me?

Do you ever think that there will be a day when people who can work with the Dewey Decimal System might be punished for this ability? Perhaps euthanized even?

No. I don't dream of that. --Juiced lemon 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Eek! I have more background in science fiction where you can make interesting scenarios and suggest difficulty in the safety of it not being real and being a way to examine what might happen. I am now very sorry that I used such strong black-comedy to illustrate a thought I had. In real life, I have spent a lot of my time verbalizing a desire that my country stay out of other countries. I was very young when we were in Cambodia and I might not ever understand it. Fiction should be an outlet for frustration. Shakespeare did this (I think) when he wrote about ways to solve lawyer problems.

Did you get blocked because of me? I ask because I have found myself in a strange online world and also a foreign to me real world. While you were blocked (I did not know you were blocked) I was thinking about conversations I had had with friends in my past. The only thing I know to do to figure out new people and new situations is to try to map something from my past into it. When I was a kid, my mom had a garden in our backyard. She did most of the work there and sometimes we would help and sometimes we wouldn't. It was no big deal. Later, I made a friend whose mom had used their garden as punishment when she was a child. As adults, I had a garden and I loved to be in it but my friend was unable to see what I enjoyed about it and never spent time with me in it. I was thinking about home-schooled kids and these wiki-projects and mapping my garden incident onto it: that there are people who volunteer here because they love it and others who are working because they are being punished. I am sorry if I caused you undue frustration or commotion or punishment. -- carol 10:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I got blocked following the bunch of edits which is listed here. These edits were part of a banale maintenance operation, so this block was a patent abuse and you are not responsible for that. --Juiced lemon 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More apologies

Tell me when you are sorry that you reverted something I had changed :) -- carol 09:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You mention there an inherent difficulty about this project. Individual actions lead naturally to chaos. Ideally, people who works on classification in Commons should be aware of basic principles and undergo some training.

My concern is to bring some order and consistency, in order to maintain the attraction of this website. I revert changes when I think they are a mess factor. That doesn't mean that these changes are necessarily illogic, so my actions can still be discussed. --Juiced lemon 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of getting access to more than 3500 images from the USForest Service. I am not interested in making gallery of them. Also, they have been organized already by the USForest Service by state. If I am able to get access to the images, they are probably named by the identification number that the Forest Service used. I found one commons user who seems to have experience with auto-cropping software and I think it should not be difficult to find someone to tailor an upload tool so that getting the images here and Categorized should be somewhat easy. Many of the photographs need and deserve repair -- which would also be a good time to rename them. Would you be interested in helping at any point in that project, in the case that I am able to get the images? So far, almost every image I have seen from this collection is older than 1970; my little upload of 100-110 images was very very interesting so far -- interesting enough that I can't wait to get the whole stack of them.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. -- carol 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The pertinent informations about pictures from USForest Service are:

• Forest Name
• Subject (deciphered)
• Date (year)
• Serial Number

So, try to build a consistent naming system, based on part or all these informations.

I'll not help you in the recovery process of this set of pictures, but I can learn you how to categorize the files in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this list, it is also the list of things I did with my small upload. -- carol 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

hi there Juiced lemon, do you think you could give in some of your opinion on this case, not sure what to think about it, I thought categories have to be in English. Gryffindor 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, juiced lemon. Havang 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Banale canal, wide enough for a single image demonstration?

Yesterday, I saw an image in the New Images Gallery, at least I think it was this image: Image:SiberianTiger Rome(1).jpg. When I surveyed my browser history to find it, I found the gallery page for Bioparco. When I went to that gallery page, the images themselves had no highlights associated with them to tell me the ones I had 'visited' already. When I search for Siberian tiger this image doesn't appear. I see no way in which this image has been categorized as anything except this Bioparc place, which is to me a shame and a loss because I might actually want or need an image like this of a Siberian tiger and this image never is presented as such.

Can you demonstrate how the image should be Categorized or how it has already been Categorized properly for me (so I can see an example or an explanation) and then how users of this collection can easily find it? -- carol 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:AFBorchert has added a correct category to this image. I don't notice other noteworthy features for this picture. According to the description, the location would be correctly specified, because Category:Rome is overpopulated. --Juiced lemon 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Musical notes

Once again I'm here ;-) Let's have a short talk about this one. Category:Musical notation is quite correct (and I nearly lost track of this one, thanks), however, Category:Musical scores was correct, too. If Musical notation exclusively contains files showing notes and other score stuff, we can move it to Category:Musical scores and use Musical notation as supercat for all these cats holding specific notational icons like rests, notes, and so on. Comments? Code·is·poetry 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You have added a (text) note which states that this category is not intended for sheet music of concrete works. Therefore, I think that Category:Musical scores is not a pertinent parent, since, in the English Wikipedia, musical score is a redirection to sheet music. --Juiced lemon 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I got your point. I tried to establish „Musical scores“ as a rather general term for all notation-related stuff, but I'm not that firm in your language. „Musical scores“ were the proposal of one user on #wikipedia-en. Do you know a better term? Regards, Code·is·poetry 11:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Musical notation is for all notation-related stuff. A musical score is only a conventional (and particular) way to display musical notation. So, in my opinion, Category:Musical scores can be a subcategory of Category:Musical notation, but cannot be a parent category for all notation-related stuff. --Juiced lemon 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As you say. I just want all kind of notation-related stuff in one cat (or its subcats) and this supercat in Category:Music media by type. In this supercat, there should be a place for Category:GNU LilyPond images and the yet-to-create (I'm working on that) Category:MusiXTeX images. If you think Category:Musical notation can be this category, I will reorganize the tree. Regards, Code·is·poetry 11:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what you said me. The subject of Category:Musical notation is how to represent music through the use of written symbols, hence a part of Category:Music theory. This category is not planned to classify the music representations themselves.

I envisaged to categorize Category:Musical scores in Category:Musical notation, because I thought about media which could explain how to make up a musical score.

Category:Compositions is currently the parent category for musical works. Sheet music is a representation of a “composition” using musical notation. --Juiced lemon 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys :). "Sheet music" is a funny term rooted in late 19th century U.S. history (the connotation was something like "pop music" has now). I haven't looked at what's in the category, but it would actually be somewhat vulgar if it was used to describe, say Bach. It's not really a subcat of notation either: it might actually be best made a subcat of Music. As a subcat of notation would be similar to making Novels a subcat of the Alphabet, if you see what I'm saying :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. There is this pretty category Category:Music by media type. I just want one subcategory which holds all these files where notes are present, may they be single notes, keys, bars, or complete works. Since I am not a fluent speaker of the english language, I have no idea of any word describing this. Additionaly, we need some category for the rather abstract images like single notes, and one for noted representations of existing pieces of art. I think, Category:Musical notation is a sort of "topic category", so it should not be used, but rather be a supercategory for, among others, the category holding the abstract files. Likewise, Category:Compositions would be the superior category for the category of the concrete pieces of works. What do you think? Regards, Code·is·poetry 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the name in German, we'll translate it. If you cannot, maybe other users will not understand your concept, that is it would not be a good idea to create a category about it. --Juiced lemon 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context of Category:Music by media type, my concept should be self-explaining. I think, in german we would just say „Noten“ or „Musiknoten“, because „Noten“ not only means "notes", but also refers to more complex examples and scores. I doubt that any "end user" would ever search for this category, just like no one searches for "Music by country" – it's a helper category. I think, we should not put so much effort on this detail. There is no "true" or "best" term. We just have to take one and put in clear definitions. Regards, Code·is·poetry 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION, you would have a consistent set of media types in the context of Category:Music by media type. So, you can associate a possible subcategory with each element from this set. If no such subcategory satisfies you, that probably means you think according to an unusual and unexpected logic (in Commons classification context).

If you want to reorganize music-related or sound-related categories, I suggest you to build a scheme at first, like the ones in Category:Commons category schemes.

As regards particularly media types, I think that the media type is generally an useless feature for the topics structure, so I plan to develop a new system using keywords. --Juiced lemon 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Category_talk:Music ;-) Actually, I think that in musicology, there is a big lack of precisely defined terms, but well, we can only work with what we got. I think the category I want to create is convenient, even if I am not able to provide the perfect lemma. Otherwise, we have to divide between scores of work and abstract notes and we have no place for Category:GNU LilyPond images. Regards, Code·is·poetry 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of Category:GNU LilyPond images in Category:GNU LilyPond is enough, because we must assume that its content is (or will be) properly categorized in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There will be no relation between LilyPond and MusiXTeX files. Code·is·poetry 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GNU LilyPond is music software, and I assume that MusiXTeX files are data for music software. So, I don't understand your comment. --Juiced lemon 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are software to render notes. Both categories hold / will hold rendered digital scores. Code·is·poetry 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you would find Category:GNU LilyPond and Category:MusiXTeX in Category:Music software. Music data files can be categorized according to file formats. --Juiced lemon 07:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Music data files"? Code·is·poetry 10:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Media files in authorized audio formats, media files about authorized and non-authorized audio formats. --Juiced lemon 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't needlessly move categories up in page

Re: Image:Politcal Map of 19th Century China（時局全圖）.jpg , please don't needlessly move categories up in a page. Though of course it doesn't make any difference to page functionality or display, the stylistically preferred location for categories on a Wikipedia/Wikimedia page is in fact directly above any interwikis, and below everything else. If the categories are already in this stylistically-preferred position, please don't move them elsewhere in the page, as this creates a stylistically non-preferred positioning, and also needlessly complicates the reading of edit diffs when there are many categories involved (as is the case with Image:Politcal Map of 19th Century China（時局全圖）.jpg). AnonMoos 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I move categorization in order to display categories of the topics structure on the left of the page, before the category of other structures. --Juiced lemon 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means -- it probably refers to something in the particular "skin" which you're choosing to use, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in other "skins". AnonMoos 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there no way in agreeing on the order and placement of the elements in the images and categories ? As far as I noticed here and on the wiki's worldwide, the ordering "habit" seems to be:

1. Main text, including description fields
2. External links
3. Licensing information
4. Categories
5. Interwiki's

I notice a lot of changing back and forward of the category placements which is a real waste of energy for all of us. I don't understand the above rationale or explanation of Juiced lemon. Personally, I would prefer the categories as the very last item as this is the place where most changes happen and I tend to jump always to the end of the screen. But as the IW's are usually placed there (robot habit or constraint ?), I can live with that. --Foroa 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think things ought to be left in this order for consistency, moving categories away from the bottom makes them harder to find. (is a category present because it is named off, or because it's brought in via template? If you have to look all over the whole page, that increases the possibility of wasting time traipsing through templates..) ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Coats Category check

Hello, Juiced Lemon, I completed the 12 subcategories of Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the Netherlands. I had made first as experiment an (hand-made) content and a one-category-up catscan link, which helped me greatly to eliminate wrong files, find doubles and all missing files. This is a semi-closed finite collection now. Could you have a look at it and give your judgment? Greetings. Havang 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Strain gauges

Category:Strain gauges, thermocouples, accelerometers, ultra sonic sensors ... are (measurement) sensors or convertors. They convert a physical value into an electronic value (current, resistance, voltage) and need an electronics counterpart (conversion, scaling, linearisation, ...) to form a real measuring instrument. --Foroa 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is for the complete instrument, so we can categorize pictures of any part of the instrument in Category:Strain gauges. --Juiced lemon 13:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As you prefer. I think that the most accurate and generic technical term is transducers. Note that transducers are not only part of measuring instruments but as well in controllers (for example train, crane, car controllers), medical instruments (pacemaker, ...), protheses (hearing aid, ...), consumer equipment (weight scales, fridges) and manufacturing equipment. So I would certainly suggest a separate topic/class for this type of devices.

--Foroa 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

“Transducer” is a low differential concept, then it is not important for classification. --Juiced lemon 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DOM

Hello, juiced lemon, all dutch users use DOM for the Utrecht cathedral, so if you want to get items lost, you should stick at a name nobody uses. Do you also relocate all items under Utrecht DOM church, DOM tower? Don't bother too much about the lesser problems, that is not good for your nerves. Good luck Havang 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, “dom” means “cathedral”, or “stupid”. So I read “Dom church” as “stupid chuch”, because it has no nave. More, the current category name “Utrecht Dom church” is misspelled, so I have added a move request.

The proposed destination, Cathedral of Saint Martin, Utrecht, can be discussed in the talk page. --Juiced lemon 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your previous support when I was unfairly blocked. --Juiced lemon 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC) OKE, User:Havang

Before starting a series of undocumented reverts, it might be wiser to look first in en:Dom, en:Dom Tower of Utrecht and Category:Kölner Dom. --Foroa 10:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

JL, it is in fact both "DOM" and "Domkerk", but not "domme kerk". See the site of the church: [6]. DOM is a church with the predicate "Deo Optimo Maximo", often cathedral, but not always. In utrecht, it is Domkerk because its not the Utrecht cathedral. The cathedral is the Sint Catharijnekerk, which is not a DOM. I don't mind what the final name is; but dutch people search for DOM. I have slight preference for "Category:DOM of Utrecht". Havang 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Politicians of France

Hi, can you suggest how to fix up the categories Category:Politicians of France and Category:Politicians from France as they are obviously overlapping, and one of them is probably the right one. Thanks. Deadstar (msg) 11:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The right one is Category:Politicians of France, because they apply (or have applied) for offices of France (see Category:Politicians by country). Normally, we should move the contents of Category:Politicians from France, but this category is cluttered up and such move would impede browsing.

This overcrowding is partially the result of the overcategorization of galleries, while a matching category exists. --Juiced lemon 11:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So the suggestion is to leave it as is? Thanks. Deadstar (msg) 11:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you to sort the pictures in proper categories, to organize galleries and categories, then the contents of Category:Politicians from France will be moved to Category:Politicians of France.

Examples: [7], [8]

--Juiced lemon 11:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hint: use the pywikipedia bot "category.py tidy". Siebrand 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alicante

I'm sorry. I don't speak English. Spanish only. (In Spanish:) Lo siento, no quería revertir todo. Por cierto: el nombre de la provincia de Alicante en inglés es "Alicante", pero en algunas categorías pone "Alacant". ¿Qué puedo hacer? Gracias y saludos. Jose Garzón 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oui, je comprends le français très bien. Je traduis ce que je dis : "je le sens, je ne voulais pas revertir tout. Certes: le nom de la province d'Alicante est en anglais "Alicante", mais à quelques catégories il met "Alacant". Qu'est-ce que je peux faire? Merci et saluts". Jose Garzón 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Jose Garzón 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you maybe discuss things beforehand a little sometimes

Could you maybe discuss things beforehand a little sometimes, instead of unilaterally proliferating categories needlessly, and then populating the new categories with just one or two images each??

Your new category category:Vulva symbols doesn't seem to me to have either big advantages or disadvantages over former category:Vulgar symbols, so making the change was pretty much just meaningless busywork.

However, your new category:Vulva is completely redundant and duplicative to the previous category:Female genitalia -- even if you can percieve some difference between the two, I very strongly doubt whether other people can consistently classify images according to such a differentiation, which means that it's pretty much useless for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons... AnonMoos 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. In the English Wikipedia, some users have written the article Vulva. Since this article is correctly illustrated, we can assume that some people are able to select vulva images and classify them in Category:Vulva.

2. In the English Wikipedia, Female genitalia is a redirection to Female reproductive system, so I think that Category:Female genitalia is redundant with Category:Female reproductive system. The vulva is the external part of the female reproductive system.

3. “Vulgar” is a cultural assessment about some situations in a society, and cannot be a classification criterion in Commons. There is no place in Commons for indeterminate categories like Category:Vulgar symbols.

4. It was not my intention to move the contents of Category:Vulgar symbols, but all these images were miscategorized, and I had to edit them to clean other categories.

--Juiced lemon 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- "Always on the move", as Obi-wan Kenobi says in Revenge of the Sith. The word "vulgar" certainly could have been better chosen, but overall it's not clear to me that the categorizations in this area are in a better state after your efforts than they were before. In fact, I'm rather doubtful that your constant whirlwind of categorizing actitivities does much to improve anything in general. As for Image:Dina-gor.svg, please do tell me what special qualifications do you have to determine the exact connotations of this symbol? The implications are explained in point 3 of the explanation on the image description page Image:Vulva symbols.svg, and User:Dm.insubre.82 was quick to see the symbolism even before this explanation was added... AnonMoos 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Also, how is Category:Symbols of human sexuality supposed to interact with Category:LGBT symbols , Category:Heterosexuality , etc. etc.? It would be nice if you would leave clear clues as to the intended purpose of a new category, instead of just populating it with one or two semi-random images... AnonMoos 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of human sexuality is for symbols regarding to human sexuality, that is not cultural symbols like LGBT symbols. --Juiced lemon 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have very little idea exactly what you intend to mean by that, but you need to add a clear explanation of it at the top of the category page... AnonMoos 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP UNILATERAL CATEGORY NONSENSE!

Dude, currently Category:Female genitalia is for external views, while Category:Female reproductive system goes under the skin -- and the result of all your abstract metaphysics is that you intend to collapse the useful distinction between these two categories, and lump them together in one big undifferentiated category. I really wish you had the basic courtesy to discuss things a little prior to unilaterally implementing radical changes of this nature -- it would save wasted effort both for yourself and for other people. AnonMoos 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Genitalia is a synonym for genitals, that is “sex organs” (wiktionary:genitalia)

2. there are external and internal sex organs, therefore genitalia regards both external and internal sex organs

3. vulva is a short term for “external female genitalia”, and since “external female genitalia” are not the same thing that “female genitalia”, “vulva” cannot be identified with “female genitalia”.

4. Category:Female genitalia is useless and would be a redirection to Category:Female reproductive system. I have added a move template in order to initiate a discussion in the proper page: so, don't remove it. --Juiced lemon 09:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD would be better. The two terms are not synonymous. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

A category move from Category:Female genitalia to Category:Vulva would be neither good nor bad (it would be relatively insignificant busywork of the kind you seem to be so fond of). But a category move from Category:Female genitalia to Category:Female reproductive system would MERGE TWO CATEGORIES WHICH CURRENTLY HAVE SOMEWHAT SEPARATE PURPOSES AND SOMEWHAT DISTINCT IMAGE CONTENT. It's not the names that matter, it's preserving a useful distinction. I don't understand how you can't see that eliminating a useful distinction would be a bad thing... AnonMoos 11:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discuss on Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/10/Category:Female genitalia. Failing to discuss will have consequences.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can give a compliment when a compliment is due

By the way, establishing category:John Norman was a pretty good idea, and you set it up with the proper category memberships (though it would have been even better if you had included all the Norman-relevant images in the category, not just one), so thanks. AnonMoos 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of human sexuality‎

By the way, speaking of nominating things for deletion, if within 3 or 4 days you don't add something to the top of category page category:Symbols of human sexuality‎ which explains in a clear manner its exact intended scope and purpose, then I will consider nominating it for removal... AnonMoos 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Religionism

Hi Juiced lemon; May I call your attention to Category talk:Religionism, please? Jeff G. and others are proposing a number of new categories and a hierarchy. You may wish to comment. Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning to AnonMoos above. Your effort in doing so is appreciated. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Landkreis Waldshut

What the hell have you done there?--Notschrei 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem? --Juiced lemon 16:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Valencian Community

In English: [9]. In Spanish: Comunidad Valenciana. In Valencian: Comunitat Valenciana. In English "Land of Valencia"?! Jose Garzón 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tu trouveras quelques explications ici (en anglais): Names of the Valencian Community. Quand la catégorie Category:Land of Valencia a été créée, la politique de Commons était d'éviter les formes adjectivales. --Juiced lemon 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please check prepared category changes

Hi Juiced lemon. Could you please check if the category moves prepared on User:Siebrand/test would be correct? TIA. Cheers! Siebrand 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Give it a quick check in case I made a typo somewhere... Cheers! Siebrand 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia

Are you in the business of renaming it and its subcats right now? Seems so judging on your contribs, but I'm not positive -- it seems half-baked now. Since the scheme of categorization by country subdivision is already adopted for Vojvodina and Kosovo, may I suggest moving the ones currently at Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia and Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia into new Category:Maps of municipalities of Central Serbia rather than the root category? Duja 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I usually categorize a map in “Category:Locator maps of X of/in Y”, when it shows a like-X location on a map of Y. So, you will find maps of Serbia in Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia.

We have no maps of Central Serbia showing municipalities, therefore I have not created Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Central Serbia.

Maybe you have noticed that most municipalities of Serbia are also categorized in Category:Cities in Serbia. This is temporary, because I need a naming convention in order to differentiate municipalities and cities (there is near always a single article for the municipality and the matching city in the English Wikipedia). Can you suggest such naming convention? --Juiced lemon 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Serbia has two (well, 1 and a sort of) provinces, and the remainder is called "Central Serbia" (city of Belgrade might be considered a part of Central Serbia or as a separate entity). In the past, the main category (now Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia) contained Vojvodina one as its subcat, while the remaining maps were in the root category. At this moment, 17 maps of Central Serbian municipalities are in the root category, and remainder in Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia.

I suggest the following:

• Change "Maps of municipalities of Serbia" to "Locator maps of Central Serbia(n) municipalities" (proper title?)
• Migrate the remaining 17 currently at the root to "Locator maps of Central Serbia(n) municipalities"
• Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia should contain only the map of the municipality itself ("large zoom"). Currently, there are only 4 such, located in Category:Maps_of_municipalities_of_Vojvodina
• I'm not sure how to organize (interrelate) Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia and Category:Locator_maps_of_municipalities_of_Serbia -- as parent of each other, or as two side-by-side subcats of Category:Maps of Serbia?

As for Category:Cities in Serbia, the situation is as follows: there are only 4 cities in legal sense, each consisting of several municipalities. The remaining 150 or so are towns, and each town is a municipality seat. On en:wp, we don't maintain separate articles for town and its municipality for practical and navigational reasons. However, since "city" and "town" are largely interchangeable, the Category:Cities in Serbia should probably remain as-is, to match the naming convention in Category:Cities by country.

I have AWB and I could fix the categories, but not before Monday. Please comment. Thanks. Duja 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Locator maps of districts of Central Serbia > Category:Maps of Central Serbia

Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Central Serbia > Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia

Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina > Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia

Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia > Category:Maps of Serbia

--Juiced lemon 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice also that the locator maps in Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia are categorized in the appropriate municipalities (exemple: Image:Serbia Aranđelovac.png, categorized in Category:Aranđelovac), while the ones in Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia and Category:Maps of Vojvodina municipalities are not (example: Image:Serbia Barajevo.png which is not currently categorized in Category:Barajevo). The classification process will be easier if the correctly categorized images are kept apart from the other ones. --Juiced lemon 10:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've lost you a bit with the first part (with those redlinked categories), but I do have in mind a sensible categorization scheme... which is easier done than told. I'll do it in a couple of days, just to find some spare time. Duja 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia, you categorize maps of Serbia, where a definite municipality of Serbia is highlighted. Since these are maps of Serbia, the category is categorized in Category:Maps of Serbia.

Then, if you don't want put all these maps together in the same category, you can add an extra information to indicate a restricted area in Serbia. The same principle is already used in numberous categories, like Category:Danube: for example, Category:Danube in Novi Sad is a category for images of the Danube, but only in a restricted area matching Novi Sad.

So, Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia becomes Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina for maps of Serbia. If you had maps of Vojvodina, the name of the category would be Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina, categorized in Category:Maps of Vojvodina.

--Juiced lemon 12:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But I dislike the contrieved naming of "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina". Why not the natural "Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina"? Since our categories are not tree-like, it will be a subcat of both "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia" and "Maps of Vojvodina", and the both are in turn in "Maps of Serbia". Someone may arrive there following the "Vojvodina->Maps of Vojvodina" path, and someone else following the "Maps of Serbia->Locator maps of Serbia" path, and they would both be fine. Duja 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina" is natural for maps of Vojvodina, like Category:Locator maps of districts of Vojvodina. However, we have maps of Serbia, not maps of Vojvodina. If you dislike "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia in Vojvodina", we can let all the locator maps of municipalities in "Locator maps of municipalities of Serbia", classified by alphabetical order, with every map categorized in the appropriate municipality. --Juiced lemon 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, just now I see what you're aiming at: we don't have any maps of Vojvodina with highlighted single municipality, which would justify the title "Locator maps of municipalities of Vojvodina". Instead, we have maps of Serbia with highlighted municipalities, which happen to be (or not) located in Vojvodina. While I understand the rationale, wouldn't it be a too much of nitpicking? I'd simply like to avoid 150+ images in a category, and 10-word category names. Duja 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid 10-word category names, too. However, if an user uploads maps of Vojvodina with highlighted single municipality, I don't want to put them together with maps of Serbia with highlighted single municipality of Vojvodina. I try to set up a classification and naming conventions which can be easily understood and implemented, and I have not a better proposal at the moment. --Juiced lemon 10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered the __NOGALLERY__ tag, which could alleviate the problem of large categories consisting of near-identical images. I'll start the job now, along the lines we discussed. Duja 08:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

...except that I forgot that I need a separate AWB approval for commons :-(. Duja 08:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Resilient Barnstar

For your tireless efforts to categorise Commons transparently and for growing as a Commons user, I award you the Resilient Barnstar. May we enjoy your work for a long time to come! Siebrand 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Tux icons

I'm not sating Tux himself is an icon, but many of the images with him in it are. Category:Tux is for anything with the character in it, not necessarily icons. Category:Penguin icons are for icons only but not necessarily Tux-like penguins. If you think we need a category that overlaps these two, maybe a gallery would be better. See Tux. I apologize for making it speedy, I didn't think it would be contested. Rocket000 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, I notice you placed Image:Tux2.png and Image:Slackware-mascot.jpeg in the category for icons. These aren't suitable for icons as they have a background, they are more illustrations. Rocket000 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the background does not matter , more you had categorized this image in Category:Penguin icons ([10]). --Juiced lemon 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to do that. However, if backgrounds don't matter, why did you revert me? (I would of reverted myself, anyway) Rocket000 01:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buoyancy

Image deletion warning

Category:Buoyancy 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

(deletion fix) --Deadstar (msg) 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Can you look at the 11 media in category:Photographs; sevral of them should not be there, I think.Greetings.Havang 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ThanksHavang 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Browse

Hello,

I realised a while ago Commons does not have this vital and useful page. Instead it is crammed on to the main page. I would prefer to move most of the "browse" type stuff to a separate page and have it in the sidebar links.

So I have had it in my head for a few weeks to start work on this page, but I haven't found the time yet. If you are interested, maybe you would like to start?

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is in my scope, and I agree to cut in the main page. However, I'd like Commons:Contents. --Juiced lemon 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the name is not so important. I was sad when I thought you were ignoring me :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

COA images of Rosa

Hello, JC, can you look at the appr. 30 images: File:Rosa....gif at [11]. Could it become a category on its own within Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Spain? See also ca:Escut de Reus. Greetings. Havang 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You can create categories about any subject which can be easily individualized, assuming they are consistent with existing structures and schemes. --Juiced lemon 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Spain Coats has a complicated tree. Do you agree with: Category:Historical coats of arms of Reus within the Category:Coats of arms of Tarragona?16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not really examined the issue, but I think that we don't need special structures for historical coats of arms. So, Category:Coats of arms of Reus would be appropriate. --Juiced lemon 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OKE  Done Havang 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Category:Association football in the United Kingdom

Hi,
If you're creating football categories, it's best to stick to the names of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and treat them as four seperate countries — phrases like "British" and "United Kingdom" aren't recognised by FIFA or football fans, since they all have their own leagues/national teams etc.
Thanks, Responsible? 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. In Commons, categories 'by country' are for an immutable list of countries. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not countries, therefore categories for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be subcategories of the suitable “United Kingdom” category. --Juiced lemon 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Category tree for churches

Hi Juiced lemon. I while ago you participated in a discussion on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands about category naming for churches and the like. From what I could see, no consensus was reached, so the rename requests have not been processed automatically. I have copied the dicussion to Category talk:Churches and I kindly invite you to have further discussion there. Once a consensus has been reached, please re-request category renaming on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thank you for your participation and understanding. Cheers! Siebrand 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see Category talk:Lazio. Also no consensus yet, as I could determine. Cheers! Siebrand 08:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Drama

You write: "Dramas are not related to theatre". Kindly see Drama for the definition. DionysosProteus 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I already know this article, and my opinion is unchanged. --Juiced lemon 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are aware, then, that since Aristotle and the subsequent 2,300 years of dramatic theory that drama is related to theatre? DionysosProteus 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware this article is worthless, and that you cannot get any reliable information from it. So, choose a definition in a dictionary, and we'll discuss about it. --Juiced lemon 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article is cited and provides an appropriate definition. Or see ANY textbook on drama. Denial isn't just a place in Egypt, huh? DionysosProteus 01:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This definition don't specifically regards theatre. --Juiced lemon 01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the citation: The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. What on earth could possess you to maintain such a eccentric view? DionysosProteus 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake

I was just about to fix that. Edit conflict with you. Sorry. You were right. 3 as in the year - got it. Rocket000 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We use the same conventions than the English Wikipedia, X for years, and X (number) for numbers. --Juiced lemon 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that now. Thank you. Rocket000 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Folder icons

Please see Category:Directory icons first, as I don't wish to argue semantics. Category:Folder icons and Category:Directory icons contain the same thing. In the Windows world, they're called "folders", in the rest of the world we call them "directories". That is why there's two categories in the first place. I'm trying to fix that. I would appreciate if you would discuss the issue at hand instead of simply continuing to revert good faith edits. Edit-warring is not fun :) Rocket000 02:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single “directory icon” in Category:Directory icons. Anyway, regarding to the subject of a given category, any content is pointless. If I fill Category:Vulpes with chicken images “because” foxes eat chicken, foxes will not mutate in chicken.

So, the instructions are: categorize properly each media file according to its features, so we'll get categories with consistent contents.

Sorry to be insistent about semantics, but that is the kernel of a correct classification. In Category:Directory icons, I see icons which show:

• file folders
• wastebaskets
• filing cabinets
• no-entry signs

Therefore, all these files are badly categorized and would be moved to suitable categories. If you'd want to rename Category:Folder icons to Category:File folder icons, I'll support you. --Juiced lemon 12:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Breasts

I've contributed far more images than you have to the Commons and I can guarantee you I'm more well-known around here than you, so if you are going to go around making accusations that I'm trying to gain publicity (huh?) than you should think before you shoot your mouth off. I'll revert you, if not simply for your heavy-handed tactics that don't seek to discuss, but impose your will. Then I'll open it up for wider discussion. --DavidShankbone 14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lodging accusations against long-standing contributors who are held in high-esteem, especially one with my body of work, is neither good faith nor cool. It makes you sound like a jackass to say, "Oh, you want to include photos taken at Tara Subkoff's fashion show in the fashion category? Self-promotion!" Self-promoting what? The only thing I photograph for is Wikipedia and the Commons. I'm not a professional, and those photos are some of the poorest quality ones I've contributed. So don't be such a jerk about it. The photos are topless and have breasts. What's you reason for removing those categories? --DavidShankbone 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And as far as Mark Allyn, I can't tell you a thing about him, but he certainly hasn't received the press coverage that the event I photographed did (http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2003RTW/review/IMTATION) --DavidShankbone 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine of Catalonia

I have renamed some photographs in Cuisine of Catalonia to move them to Food in Catalonia. It seemed that both headings referred to the same matter, and there were far more images in the second class than in the prior one. Maybe a redirection would be necessary, but I don't know how to do it for a category. What do you think? Jordi Roqué 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine is an art, food is tangible. We need both “cuisine” categories in order to find illustrations for “cuisine” articles (like Catalan cuisine), and “food” categories in order to find illustrations for economy-related subjects.

Generally, when you have photographs of food (including beverages) in a market, a shop, or at a production venue, these photographs are for “food” categories (example: packaged pasta). When you have photographs of cocktails, cooked food on dishes, food that somebody prepares for cooking, cooks, or arranges on a dish, these photographs are for “cuisine” categories. --Juiced lemon 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleavage vs Décolleté !

About your correction here. I understand that these words have different meanings. But I think cleavages are due to low-cut clothing, i.e. décolletés. So if we keep both categories, pictures may alwaysbe categorized in both. Am I wrong? By the way, for your knowledge, décolleté is a French-origin word and actually in French décolleté means both décolleté and cleavage!... Also, if you consider the interwiki links in Wikipedia projects, you can easily see that en:Cleavage (breasts) is linked to any décolleté article on other languages WP (of course you could say that's a mistake but again, I tend to think it would be strange to have different articles for cleavages and for décolleté/low neckline). Regards --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 07:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons is not a dictionary. Regarding to categories, subjects are relevant, language issues are not.

• Category:Décolleté needs some “dry-cleaning”. This is clothing-related category, not a voyeurism-related category.
• Category:Cleavage (breasts) focuses on breasts. So, if you see one or several heads on the photograph, it would be probably a very bad idea to categorize the photograph in Category:Cleavage (breasts). --Juiced lemon 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cher ... Cher (singer) / Cher (département)

Désolé, sorry ! J'avais cru bien faire ! - amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just you...

...but you're a big part of it. [[12]].

Thanks, Juiced lemon :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

+1. I am impressed how this page becomes quiet. --Foroa 08:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bugged tool

Ok, I didn't notice it. When you say "don't use anymore" do you mean "nevermore"? The tool won't be fixed? Dantadd✉ 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I spoke about the tool you have used, which don't help when you have to repair the damage. I have not informations concerning to updates or other similar tools. --Juiced lemon 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nature of Gibraltar

Hello. I have reverted you at Category:Nature of Gibraltar because, as I explained in the edit summary, Gibraltar is categorised as a country for the sake of taxonomy (en:List of Countries in Europe), and it is certianly not part of the UK (see en:British overseas territories). I will assume good faith and trust you will not revert again. Thank -- RedCoat 07:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

logics and logic

I am just about to unite these two categories, do you really want to separate them? (I decided for logics as the name, because there were already more content). Best regards.

Plural form is not used for domains of knowledge, except when there is no singular form. Examples: Category:Literature, Category:Philosophy, Category:Geology, etc. Contents are pointless. --Juiced lemon 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But then we can just rename the category logics into logic

Yes, but the content of Category:Logics would be checked beforehand. More, there are two different notions in the English Wikipedia: Mathematical logic and Logic. Logic is not a part of mathematics. --Juiced lemon 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion logics belongs to philosophy and mathematics. We could also introduce subcategories mathematical logic and philosophical logic.

I should examine this issue more deeply. However, at the moment, I think you can create Category:Mathematical logic, since there is a matching article. More, most of content of Category:Logics probably refers to mathematical logic. And don't forget your signature. --Juiced lemon 00:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI: there are some fields in logic where "logics" applies, but it's probably better to call them "logical systems". Modal logic, in particular, has a number of mutually exclusive systems (intuitively, any field of logic which allows undeterminable (as opposed to just undetermined) variables would have such mutually exclusive systems). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. city categories

A discussion concerning naming conventions for U.S. city categories can be found at Commons:Village pump#U.S. city categories. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Solar System object comparisons

I am wondering whether we actually need Category:Solar System object comparisons, see Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/11/Category:Solar System object comparisons as everything in its superior category Category:Astronomical_object_comparisons except for the stars sub-category would fit in the sub-category leaving it empty, there seems little point in having a subcategory that contains everything in the superior category. I think other sub-categories would be more useful in breaking up Category:Solar System object comparisons. Eg 'Planet size comparisons', 'Satellite size comparisons':-) --Tony Wills 08:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Schutzstaffel

This category is redundant to Category:SS. I also disagree with renaming "Nazi Germany" categories to "Third Reich" ones. All things considered, "Nazi Germany" is more neutral. --217.186.136.221 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazy Germany is only a part of the subject of Third Reich. We have Third Reich-related media files which don't regard to Nazi Germany. Using inappropriate names is incompatible with correct classification in Wikimedia Commons. --Juiced lemon 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:Nazi Germany. --217.186.136.221 14:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mother's Cross

FYI, this was NOT a military decoration. Don't play silly on me or I shall report you for vandalism. --217.186.136.221 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the vandal. You would report yourself. --Juiced lemon 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Grounds for the moving "Category:Trams in Sapporo" to "Category:Sapporo Streetcar"

I noted grounds for the moving. As for details, please refer Category talk:Sapporo Streetcar. --J o 02:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Deputies of France

Hi,

Can you explain why you revoques my modifications here and here ? Category:Chamber of Deputies of France doesn't exist wheareas Category:National Assembly of France does.

Cheers.--Bapti ✉ 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no National Assembly of France during the French Third Republic, according to his constitution. --Juiced lemon 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

{{svg}} in categories

Your edit in Category:Population statistics Germany is justified by “forbidden in categories”. Where can I find this restriction? The template is designed for this case (watch source code: “This {{{1|}}} image | All images in this {{ #ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | Category | category | article }} }} should be recreated...”). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no Commons policy to replace non-SVG images with SVG ones.

2. Categories are software features to gather media files regarding to a given subject. In the topics structure, this subject havn't media type properties. The properties of the content are pointless.

3. Categories are used for browsing, not for maintenance. Therefore, don't disturb the normal usage of categories with stupid templates which will be never removed since we'll keep non-SVG images.

4. If you want to pin any category for own reasons, mark it on your private notepad, and don't be a pain for the community.

--Juiced lemon 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you very kind response.

1. Category:Images that should use vector graphics states that Images composed of simple shapes, lines, and letters [...] should be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file.

3. I am just wondering why the Template:Convert to SVG explicitly was programmed for the use in categories (see above).

4. That was not my intention.

In a nutshell: if this template has not to be used in categories, the feature of the template showing All images in this category should be recreated... should be deleted. I just wanted to help Commons become better. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Appendix: watch Category:Administrative units of Slovakia, Category:City parts of Bratislava, Category:Red.png stroke order images, Category:AVL-trees, Category:Bronze script GIFs, Category:Burmese script, Category:Glagolitic alphabet, Category:Great seal script GIFs. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find instructions which allow the use of the template in categories. When you drive a car, you have generally to comply with a speed limit, even if the car was built to go much faster. That is the same thing with the template.

When I read Template talk:Convert to SVG, I realize that this format is questionned by numberous other users. In my opinion, this template have a major flaw, because it encourages the creation of SVG images by non-specialists of the concerned subject, so the results are often pathetic.

So, requests for conversion of images to SVG cannot be evasive like requests for a whole category, and I am removing the template:Convert to SVG (and aliases) from all categories of the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mills

Hello,juiced lemon, good news: yes, for the mills category more and more new files are placed directly in the right categories. However, new uploades sometimes don't find their way through. Also I did still nothing about the subcategories windgenerators, windturbines, windparks, which can use improvemements. Greetings. Havang 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of armoured cars from AFV cat

According to most references Armoured cars "...are a type of armoured fighting vehicle having wheels (from four to ten large off-road wheels) instead of tracks, and usually light armor... It would seem perfectly logical therefore to place armoured cars under the main category of AFV. I look forward to your reasoning as to why armoured cars should not be placed in the AFV category. KTo288 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully the article Armoured cars. You'll learn that armoured cars have armour. An armoured fighting vehicle is an armoured vehicle with weapons.

You cannot classify Category:Armoured cars according to fictional features of this subject, for example “Category:Armoured cars with weapons”, or “Category:Armoured cars with flowers”: that would be hightly moronic in both cases. --Juiced lemon 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If I understand it, your reasoning is that only vehicles with both armour and armament should be considered as AFVs, and since armoured cars are not normally armed, even if images of armed armoured cars appear in the armoured car category, the category as a whole should not be placed as a sub category of AFVs. However the armoured car article states that there are three types of armoured car, the armoured limousine type, the armoured security type and the military armoured cars which are AFVs. The majority of the vehicles in the category at present most of the vehicles are the military type. Have a look at these images from different eras taken from the category. Mentally replace the wheels of these vehicles with tracks, and what do you see?

• 
  September 1918: A Light Armoured Car patrol
• 
  M8 Greyhound armored car
• 
  Alvis FV 601 Saladin armored car
• EE-9 Cascavel
  EE-9 Cascavel
• 
  AMX 10 RC (Not in the armoured car category but described as an armoured car in its wikipedia page.)

You do not have to imagine the presence of turrets and weapons in these pictures, these are not fictional features but intrinsic elements of the design. Your demarcation between armoured cars and AFVs is for example armoured cars like the AMX 10 RC have weapons as a capable as many main battle tanks, whilst APCs such as the M113 and FV432 for the most part were armed with one or two machine guns most often in open mounts, an armament arrangement inferior to many armoured cars even historical ones. If it troubles you, perhaps one compromise would be to divide the category, into military and civilian armoured cars, and place only the military armoured cars into the AFV cat. KTo288 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can create categories in order to classify the media files in Category:Armoured cars and categorize them according to their more specific features. However, if your interest lies only in military armoured cars, you could as well leave the other images in their current category. --Juiced lemon 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

SVG structure

The topics structure is a browsing structure which is intended to find media files according to their subject. SVG files, as every file in the Commons database, must be individually categorized in the topics structure according to their “subject” features. The SVG structure is a media type structure, and have nothing to do with the topics structure.

The mix-up of these structures is harmful to the searching of the media files and to the classification process in Wikimedia Commons.

So, stop your reversions. --Juiced lemon 14:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment here to keep discussion in one place. I will watchlist your talk page for awhile.

We discussed this before. Images can be categorized in multiple categories.

You recently tried to remove relevant categories. I put them back. Please stop removing relevant categories. --Timeshifter 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the topics structure which don't match topics are undesirable. If you don't respect the accepted organization in Commons, and want to make a mess with the topics structure, I'll request to limit your activities in this project. --Juiced lemon 14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your personal categorization schemes do not set the rules. Please stop removing longstanding, relevant, applicable categories. Please stop your threats. You are going back to your old habits, and many people have pointed out these problems with your edits before. And you were doing so well for awhile... --Timeshifter 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume this is why you removed the category Category:Maps of the United Kingdom from Category:SVG maps of the United Kingdom. I disagree strongly with that edit. SVG maps of the UK are by definition maps of the UK; that means they should be in Category:Maps of the United Kingdom. Removing the category is not helpful. Please don't do it again. Superm401 - Talk 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't know (or like me forgot), Juiced lemon nominated nominated Category:SVG maps for deletion. It was kept, with no one else supporting deletion, so I think consensus on this is clear. Superm401 - Talk 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Juiced lemon has unfortunately left us for good, I believe. His last edit was December 14 (and he's indefinitely blocked). - Rocket000 12:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Linked circles

Would you mind to have a look at the discussion `linked circles', what is your opinion? Darapti

Interwiki links

Stop to impair the Commons organization. Categories are linked to Wikipedia articles, categories by default. This is not an option. --Juiced lemon 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Interwiki links on category pages link to other category pages in other-language wikipedias. --Timeshifter 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not a Wikipedia project and we have our own rules. Most users follow these rules and link Commons categories to Wikipedia articles. If you don't want to follow our Commons rules, find an occupation in another project. --Juiced lemon 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are going back to old habits in the tone of your comments. Just because French is your native language does not allow you to be uncivil. I know that your understanding of English is good enough to avoid being uncivil. Admins have pointed out this incivility problem on your part in the past. By the way, it is uncivil to put back discussions on a user's talk page after the user deletes them. I moved the discussion here. Please keep it here. I am watchlisting this page here.

Interwiki links on category pages on both the commons and Wikipedia are supposed to link to category pages on other-language wikipedias. Please stop removing those category interwiki links. --Timeshifter 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We should start studiing the interwikilinks including dijambisme and leveldifferences: 1 item in one wiki wikilinked to 2 or even more other items in oneother wiki . If that has been resolves, commons category can be interwikilinked to both article and category (leveldifference). At several wikipedias people are discussing similar problems, notably the english wikipedia. May-be we should do the like and think over the problem more thoroughly. greetings . Havang 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia projects have problems because they allow stupid bots to destroy correct interwiki links. The issue is quite different in Wikimedia Commons: when there are an article/gallery and a category about the same subject in any project, they must be linked together. Therefore, in such case, we havn't to bother with categories. Users come in Commons from articles, so they'll return to articles. --Juiced lemon 20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Users come to the commons in many ways. From images they click in various-language wikipedias, and then follow back to the source image on the commons and its categories. From image categories on the various-language wikipedias, and the sister links to the commons categories. From articles in various-language wikipedias, and then the article categories and the sister links to the commons categories.

The commons is about images mostly. When people go to commons categories they like being able to use the interwikilinks to go to the same categories on other-language wikipedias in order to view other images in the same category.

If they like those images, and want to do more, they can copy them to web pages outside wikipedia, or they can upload them to their-language wikipedia, or better yet, they can upload them to the commons if they are public-domain images, and not fair-use images.

The introductions to commons categories are a good place to link to the commons galleries of the same name. I do that often. I also add "See also" links to related categories on the commons. Those are in addition to normal categorization and subcategorization.

There needs to separate locations on commons category pages for interwikilinks to articles and categories. The labeling of those locations needs to be clear. Right now it just says "in wikipedia". Many casual viewers, and many editors, do not know what that sidebar section is for. Since the links are in other languages it is not obvious what is being linked to.

The section needs to be clearly labeled with something like this: "Links to CATEGORY of the same name in other-language wikipedias". On commons article/gallery pages we need to decide whether to link to articles or categories on other-language wikipedias. I believe it makes more sense to link to categories since that is where similar images will be found. Similar to the commons gallery images.

If we also want interwikilinks to articles, then we need a separate location on the sidebar, and it needs to be labeled with something like this: "Links to ARTICLE of the same name in other-language wikipedias". --Timeshifter 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I'd say the majority of categories on commons won't have a corresponding category on the wikipedias, because while we might have hundreds of images on a narrow topic, it's rather unlikely that the 'pedias will have hundreds of articles on a narrow topic. The wikipedia links generally serve as a way of directing our audience towards an article that explains what they're looking at. If there are categories of images on the wikipedias that are not on commons, the best route would be to just upload these to commons (commonshelper was developed for just this purpose).

By the way, Juiced lemon is being at least as civil as you are, Timeshifter (if not considerably more so), but frankly this discussion belongs on the Village Pump, as opposed to J.l.'s talk page. Would one of you mind perhaps starting a thread? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have promoted this new way to link Commons categories for months, but now it is a custom practice, because most users realize the advantages to get more links about matching subjects in the Wikipedia projects.

Here, Timeshifter leads a rearguard action, which appears to me rather as a personal conflict. I feel no need for a discussion, while I have no doubt about the outcome. --Juiced lemon 10:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you, Juiced lemon, have been using a personal system for months does not mean it is a new standard for the commons. I only recently noticed your changes in this area on the many categories and images I watchlist. --Timeshifter 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SB_Johnny. If you read some of the other talk sections here you will see that Juiced lemon has been very uncivil recently with me. Many admins on the commons have pointed out this incivility to him. This is rude: "If you don't want to follow our Commons rules, find an occupation in another project." One, it is not Juiced lemon who makes up the rules, and two, it is not Juiced lemon who tells people to leave the project. Juiced lemon is not an admin, and even admins have to go through procedures.

I have no problem if this thread is copied anywhere, if it is not a problem with Juiced lemon. But Juiced lemon does not seem to want to do this. Probably because he can't just impose his will on notice boards, etc.. He has had a lot of problems at notice boards, etc..

To the topic at hand... Juiced lemon is changing a longstanding interwikilinking system on his own, and messing up the interwikilinks on many categories. If the Village Pump or other notice board reaches consensus to change this longstanding methodology, then fine. But Juiced lemon can't just change something so major by himself.

People can't upload images to the commons if they can't find them. To me that is the best purpose of the category interwikilinks. Plus one can't find the equivalent categories easily any other way. Linking only to the articles in other languages means one has to go to the bottom of the article and decipher the meaning of the categories listed at the bottom of the article. Categories in other languages.

I actually agree with you and Juiced lemon that we also need a second sidebar section to articles with the same name as the category. But that would be a major change. It would be an ADDITIONAL sidebar section. --Timeshifter 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are using spurious argumentation. Many other users link Commons categories to articles. The links to only categories was consistent with an old and obsolete conception of Commons organization, when media files were supposed to be in galleries, while the categories were only a way to access to galleries.

This conception was clearly incompatible with classification operations, considering the growth of the size of Commons database. Therefore, there is no more reason to restrict interwiki links to categories, above all a lot of classification errors are the result of ignorance about the concerned subject: informations are in articles, not in categories. --Juiced lemon 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Till now, I have not seen any convincing argumentation for one systematic approach above the other. So I'd suggest not to waste our energy and destroy the work from the others: if there is an interwiki link, just leave it as is till we can agree on a sensible and systematic approach. --Foroa 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that, with my linking system, man cannot establish more interwiki links from Commons categories? --Juiced lemon 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the commons was to find images, not articles. Therefore all interwikilinking should serve that purpose first and foremost, I would think. Categories are the best way to find images. Related images can be found in subcategories. For example; I see native English speakers drilling down in interwikilinked French categories in order to find more images to upload to the commons. In order to use those images on English wikipedia in articles in the same category.

It is also useful to look for the few images found in the article of the same name in other languages.

I would like to see 2 sidebar sections labeled:

• Article interwiki links.
• Category interwiki links.

Then people can leave both types of interwikilinks. The MediaWiki software could be adjusted to automatically separate the 2 types of interwikilinks into the 2 sidebar sections.--Timeshifter 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

When an image is uploaded in any Wikipedia project, we can assume that it has not been uploaded in Commons. We don't need any human operation to notice that. We only need human operations to check eligibility of these files for the Commons database. Therefore, interwiki links have no utility to find new images.

The MediaWiki software don't sort or filter the interwiki links. Hence, you can create as many lists as you want with articles, categories, duplicates, if you like the mess.

Because I prefer order, I promote the most complete ordered list without duplicates (article+category). Links to categories could be tagged with a special symbol. --Juiced lemon 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess there is no reason why both article and category interwiki links can't be used. They should be alphabetized though. Then people will more easily see when there are both types of links. For example; the English article link will be next to the English category link in the interwikilink list. It would be nice if articles or categories could be tagged with a special symbol. The MediaWiki software would have to be changed.

Images on other-language wikipedias can't be found by many editors without the interwiki links. People natively speaking that language may know about those images. But editors who are not native speakers of that language will not likely know of those images without the interwikilinks in the commons allowing them to view the images in the same category on an other-language wikipedia. So if they don't know about them, they can't upload them to the commons. --Timeshifter 22:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of the Balkans

This was not intended to be vandalism. Don't you think, the categorization would be correct the other way round? I think, all the history of e.g. Montenegro belongs to the history of the Balkans. But the whole history of the Balkans is not part of the history of each countries. This means, Category:History of Albania, Category:History of Bulgaria, Category:History of Greece, Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia and Category:History of Serbia should all be placed in the Category:History of the Balkans - but not vice versa. This would IMHO be logically correct. FelixReimann 08:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The region of the Balkans don't belong to the partition defined in Commons:Territorial division of the World, so it's a secondary territory as regards the classification process. Secondary territories are categorized in primary ones (those defined in the previous page), not the contrary. --Juiced lemon 09:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Train Stations or Railway Stations

I see you've tagged several categories to be renamed from Railway stations in... to Train stations in.... The term "train station" is generally considered incorrect in British terminology, therefore I think Category:Train stations in the United Kingdom and all sub-categories below should be renamed accordingly. I don't know whrther Commons has a British/American use policy, but the (equivalent in English Wikipedia) (where I suspect most of the photos in these categories are used) would certainly justify this. I've been meaning to bring this up at Categories for discussion for some time, but have been too busy in recent weeks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the Universality principle in Commons:Naming categories: we should not use different names to point out an unique subject. Hence, either we keep Category:Train stations with all the subcategories named accordingly, either we rename it Category:Railway stations (and we'll rename the subcategories).

The title of the English Wikipedia article is Train station, and they were discussions about it in the talk page. Otherwise, in dictionaries, I find station, railway station, railroad station, but not train station. So, I don't want to favour this last term, but we have to standardize the category names in Wikimedia Commons.

The only way to change the current situation is to bring the issue at Categories for discussion, in my opinion. --Juiced lemon 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maori

Could you please read this? 222.153.9.50 01:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem? --Juiced lemon 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. You? Juiced, I am disappointed by your behaviour.

In your above comment and on your user talk page you all but accuse me of making a nuisance out of myself for no reason, and behave like I had kicked you in the shins out of spite! I agree in retrospect that I should have discussed the move beforehand ('Be bold' DOES apply, though - sometimes comments on talk pages here get no answers even after months - it's not Wikipedia). In my defense I did not re-move anything after it was reverted, I started discussing with you and the other admin who reverted me. And all it gets me is a 'bugger off, pest' from you.

Now to the facts:

This is a discussion of maori emigration trends based on Census New Zealand statistics. Some key points are:

• "By the time of the 2001 Australian census, this number [Maori in Australia] had grown to 72,956.
• "between 1986 and 2001, Maori emigrated to Australia at a considerably faster rate than white New Zealanders."
• "...this concern notwithstanding, Maori emigration has greatly outpaced return migration, to the point where "if current demographic trends stay the same, within a few decades perhaps one third of all Maori could be living in Australia."

This article (5 long pages of it) in New Zealand's OFFICIAL government-written encyclopedia also discusses overseas Maori, from Australia to England.

So obviously there is a pretty sizable and growing group of Maori who are not IN New Zealand, and increasingly, as young kids are born overseas, not even FROM New Zealand, except historically. There are also discussions about building marae's in Australia, as they eventually will be. Then, categories like Category:Maori buildings will become incorrect as subcats of Category:Buildings in New Zealand etc and will have to be renamed Category:Maori buildings in New Zealand....

I will also point out again that I was not seeking to create empty categories. I was trying to get the name of the existing cats changed to reflect that they all point to NZ Maori, which would help ensure that future sorting will be into the correct categories. You can disagree with me as to whether that name change is necessary NOW - but I would appreciate a bit less defensive reactions from you - whether or not you have to deal with that kind of thing all the time or not. Thanks. 222.153.9.97 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PyramidenSteine

Hello Juiced lemon. The Image:PyramidenSteine.jpg is of the western face of the pyramid of Khafra, in Gizeh, recognizable by the granite stone fragments, and because the first steps are of natural rock carved.

I am an architect; I have been in Egypt three times; I have seen it personally; and I participate actively on wiki.es

• See: [13] [14]

Thanks by take care of the objectivity of wikipedia. Greetings, José, --JMCC1 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stop vandalizing

"Warning: Stop vandalizing categories about constellations and Western astrology signs. If you remove again usefull categories, I'll request administrators intervention. --Juiced lemon 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"

Quisiera creer que existe mayor raciocinio que argumentar con base en ataques personales, pero tal parece que se estila usar una y otra vez el calificativo de "vandalismo" y la amenaza de los administradores. Por lo demás, haz lo que quieras; dudo que algún administrador considere que las constelaciones del zodíaco son una categoría taxonómica. --200.40.88.182 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have already been warned by other users that your changes were inappropriate. The classification in Commons Wikimedia is not similar than in other Wiki projects. So, don't disrupt the organization and make sure that you are doing is correct. --Juiced lemon 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ese es el problema, justamente, la costumbre de acusar de vandalismo en vez de actuar en base a algún argumento racional. No me parece ético que hagas tu acusación porque otros la hacen (y supongo que otros la hacen porque la haces tú?) pero, como te digo, no creo que se pueda razonar nada cuando lo que se estila es hacer ataques personales. Dejo el tema en manos de un administrador [15]. --200.40.88.182 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tone it down!

Juiced lemon, you're definitely moving towards trouble again right now (and I'm sorry I haven't given you warning until now, but I've been busy in real life and on other wikis). Calling people "vandals" when they're actually just having a content dispute with you is a serious breach of civility, so you need to try to just discuss the issue with them rather than dismissing them from the start. We talked about this earlier in passing, but please be clear that I consider this to be a very serious breach of civility, poisonous to the spirit of collective work and respect we need on commons, and will absolutely block you if you cross this line again.

Accusing people of "ruining commons" is also inappropriately shrill, and I will consider that to be the same thing of accusing someone of vandalism.

You've really made an impressive effort of reaching out to people and helping them understand the category trees over the last couple months, but when you approach others in this manner you're really putting your reputation (not to mention your value to the community) in jeopardy. Please try to be more thoughtful and considerate, because if you can't do that I will need to step in as a moderator again. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't call people “vandals”. I am looking for means to protect the structure of the Commons database. This structure becomes more and more sophisticated, but also frailer. In Commons, we have not a sufficient team to control most edits. If a link is removed or corrupted, it will take months (sometimes years) to repair the damage, unless the edit is immediatly reverted.

Wikimedia Commons cannot continue to work like an Wikipedia project. This project is rather similar to a software project, because most people don't realize the effects of the changes.

If I had not reverted this edit (by user:200.40.88.182), the Aries constellation couldn't be found in Category:Constellations anymore. Such situation generally leads to the creation of a duplicate category.

This user is not a vandal, but he'll make us waste more time than a vandal. --Juiced lemon 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the people you are accusing of "vandalism" might not. Please just slow down and explain things rather than accusing people of ill intent.

Keep in mind too that we'll never have a team to control edits. Commons isn't a Wikipedia, but it's still a wiki. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Babel template suggestion

Hi Juiced lemon,
I've seen your recent edit on Commons:Bistro and discovered that you have very good French skills :)
May I suggest you to add a {{Babel}} template on your personnal page and/or on your talk page, so that other contributors know your language skills? I guess that you are here before the template was created :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

I notice that you are adding incorrect categories to uncategorized files, like in this edit. If you are unable to find better categories, I strongly advise you to stop any classification activity in this project.

Competent users have other occupations than the correction of your glaring errors, and the cleaning of categories you have cluttered: classification is not for dilletantes. --Juiced lemon 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. OK, then fix it yourself. Rursus 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not very politely said, BTW. Rursus 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to come to an agreement now.

The heading above is the reason: treating other contributors in that way is absolutely unacceptable, and you have been warned repeatedly about this sort of thing before.

You are blocked indefinitely until you can agree to be civil in the future, including specific points about how you will approach conflict in the future. I appreciate the work you do categorizing, but (again) your price is too high. I will open a discussion on the admin noticeboards and try to get more people involved in drawing up a plan for you. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Treating other contributors as you are treating me is UNACCEPTABLE. Therefore, there will be no agreement with you as long as you retain an harassment behaviour.

I have no conflict with the user above, and my message was perfectly justified. I could have used a more diplomatic wording, but my message was not impolite. Your action is improper and disrupts the dialogue with this user. I have not yet answered to him, because I wanted to complete the organization of the Messier objects beforehands. That was done on 01:03, 6 December 2007 (my previous edit). --Juiced lemon 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Salut, tu m'écrivais : je viens d'être bloqué indéfiniment (...) et tu me demandais mon aide.

En fait, j'ai vu le message de SB_Johnny sur le bulletin des administrateurs, ainsi que d'autres messages à propos de ton comportement que certains trouvent problématique, et je suis cette affaire avec intérêt. Ce n'est apparemment pas la première fois que tu communiques de manière qui peut être perçue comme plus ou moins abrupte avec des nouveaux.

Je ne me prononce pas sur la validité du blocage, et par conséquent je ne tiens pas à m'aventurer à te débloquer sans en avoir au préalable discuté avec les autres administrateurs.

Ton implication dans le projet est énorme, et j'espère que ce qui t'arrive ne te découragera pas de continuer. Bien catégoriser les images est effectivement une tâche cruciale ! Cependant, je crois qu'il est essentiel que chacun d'entre nous contribue pour partie à "éduquer" les nouveaux, en les guidant et en discutant avec eux. Ceci permet autant d'aplanir les différents points de vue sur la manière de procéder, mais aussi d'en comprendre les critères sous-jacents. Je ne peux donc que t'inviter à plus de modération dans tes prises de contact avec des personnes qui ne catégorisent pas de la même manière que toi, et t'encourager à les aider de ton mieux à comprendre le "category scheme" de Commons. :)

Bien cordialement,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should both be grateful that Rursus stayed around after you slapped him like that. However, you shouldn't make assumptions about how well another person will react to your abusive behavior.

If you would rather work with another administrator (or similarly trusted fellow user), that's fine with me. I will keep myself available to serve you and the community, but frankly I need to see effort from you: the community has a better record of making an effort to accomidate you effort than your record of trying to accomidate the community.

You have served us well as a visionary and a hard worker. If you won't come to an agreement, we will miss your hard work and your insights, but we will forever benefit from your vision. Please think about this.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Darapti requested user:Rursus to improve his choice of categories: User talk:Rursus#Mathematical subcategories. I read Rursus's answer, then I wrote my message. I could have been cooler, but if nobody tells to this user he is doing a poor work, he'll ask us why we let him doing an useless work.

Classify cluttered up categories is one of the more laborious tasks in Commons, because the files are mixed up. So, I prefer to have uncategorized files than files in main categories. --Juiced lemon 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can assure you that dealing with one user dispute is a lot harder than dealing with a few wrongly categorized files (if nothing else, faulty categorization can be fixed with an edit, while mending hurt feelings is more complicated). I hope you know that I don't want to keep this block in place, but I really need to know how you're going to prevent this kind of tense situation from coming about again. I'm wide open to ideas, and I'd rather they be yours than mine or someone else's. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We are not dealing with a few wrongly categorized files, but with a growing stream of wrongly categorized files. The overpopulation of the most viewed categories leads to extra load for the servers, and waste of time for users.

That is the reality. “User dispute” is currently fictional. We need only more help pages, which could be linked when experienced users talk to newcomers. --Juiced lemon 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "growing stream of wrongly categorized files". The extra load for servers is neglectable. Help pages are only a small part of the picture. Documenting categories and their structures is another part. Educating and helping users to become proficient "categorizers" is the most critical aspect. No single user, even with serious wiki experience, is proficient here before having done a couple of hundreds of categorisations. Or maybe as a user stated: "Merci pour votre pédagogique patience, efficace aide et discrète vigilance". Maybe you should call upon your pedagogic capacities for college students. --Foroa 11:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You stated: “The extra load for servers is neglectable”. When you display a cluttered-up category, the server have to send 10 times the normal amount of data. Most cluttered-up categories are major categories, that is junction categories which are often viewed. So, I should be curious to know the details of the investigation which are the grounds for your statement.

Overpopulated categories have no advantages, so they are a real nuisance because they lead to waste of costly resources, and to the slowing down of browsing in the topics structure.

I replied on the server load argument, mainly to state that this is not the essence of the debate, so I will not go into full details. Anyway, taking some decisions about organisations or behavior should not be based on the load of a system, unless it becomes catastrophic. One can clearly see that all categories and their links are permanently in system memory. The requests to servers and file systems consume most of the computer resources; the fact that a display has a lot or very little information (from system memory) does not change significantly system load. In terms of system load, the ideal would be all categories containing close to 200 subcategories, which is certainly more effective than having to browse ten subcats deep to find an item. For categories containing images, the number of pictures influences more the system load, but on the other hand, the user needs more time to look at or select the right pictures, which means less requests to the servers, so the load balance is comparable. This is just to say that there is no reason to use system load as an argument in this debate or any categorisation debate.

My message to user:Rursus concured with a more general action in order to clean the major categories of the topics structure. I consider such message as a common act in order to stop incorrect categorization and to encourage a serious classification work. I was blocked due to this message, and I don't know why: I have no means to determine what is wrong in this text made with ordinary words. Sorry, but I had no intention to hurt this user, and when I reread the message, I still think it is correct.

User:SB_Johnny didn't try to talk me, and assumed bad faith, that is the contrary of what he advocates. He blocked me for an alleged fault which he failed to state, interrupting my communication with user:Rursus.

This administrator is no more credible, and I don't want to deal with him for anything, unless he apologize for his harassment: there was no problems for two months because User:SB_Johnny was not there to create the problems. I already told him that blocking an user cannot help to resolve any issue.

Get rid of human errors is impossible, unless you replace them with machine errors. Successful organizations know how to manage human error. In particular, they allocate tasks according to skills. I have no vocation to accomplish tasks for which I am not skilled. --Juiced lemon 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the message you posted to Rursus, and I have to conclude that it was not the best message you could have written. Please keep in mind that your comments should thank them for trying to help, but also say that "this way is the correct categorisation rather than the other way". It's annoying to have to have to clean up categorisation; I'm in the exact same position with having to clean up an entire Wikipedia's worth of categories. Therefore, because of what I've said above, I do not support the block, but until you can sufficiently demonstrate that you can assume good faith to others even when they make a mistake, I at least will not be unblocking you anytime soon. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:43, 13 December 2007 (GMT)

Juiced lemon, I have been around these past two months, as a look at this talk page's history will attest. In fact, I've tried to help you explain your opinions more than once when you seemed to be getting angry with another user. I warned you to tone it down, and you toned it up. I also warned you (last time), that if you returned to hostile behavior again, I would take exactly the action I took.

As I said before, I'm perfectly willing to create (friendly) warning/notification templates for you to use so that you won't have to (frustratingly) tell people the dame doggone thing every doggone time (because remember, the people you are trying to talk to usually don't realize that this has all been gone through before). The ball is in your court here: almost everyone who knows you (including me) wants you to continue your good work here, but almost everyone who knows you (including me) is also getting tired of having to apologize for you and/or ignore your coarse approach. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:O:

Very recently, User:KGyST added the category Category:Galaxies to this image of the Category:Sombrero Galaxy.

On Revision as of 19:51, 18 August 2007, I had cleaned this category. I'll not hide you that KGyST's edit annoys me. However, I don't incriminate this user, because it belongs at first to Wikimedia Commons, as an organization, to adopt appropriate measures in order to prevent such edits: we cannot continue to work with a part of Commons users undoing the work of other users.

I am convinced that this user is not well instructed, so I shall not call his edit “a mistake”. He obviously need some information or formation. And a consensus is required to operate such actions at a larger scale.

Your request regarding to “Good/bad faith” surprises me, because it appears to me out of scope of the current issue. My policy about that is: “I'm not psychic!”. Therefore, generally, I don't try to guess the motivations for particular edits. I think that the advise “assume good faith” has no practical usefulness: in some cases, to assume good faith would imply to assume imbecillity. Hence, I prefer to assume <nothing>, and I try to act according to the facts. --Juiced lemon 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Then if you are not assuming good faith, you are not respecting any aspect of Wikimedia Commons. AGF is fundamental. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:45, 14 December 2007 (GMT)

Juiced lemon wrote: "I think that the advise “assume good faith” has no practical usefulness: in some cases, to assume good faith would imply to assume imbecillity. Hence, I prefer to assume <nothing>, and I try to act according to the facts."

There is a flaw in your logic. It is not always easy to tell imbecility from ignorance. Your many instances of incivility in your choice of words shows that, at least unconsciously, you often assume imbecility, when to others it is obvious that you are dealing with newbie ignorance. Also, it is obvious to others that you may, at least unconsciously, be enjoying the feeling of superiority. So until you can make the effort to CONSCIOUSLY assume good faith more often, then you will continue to alienate both newbies and more experienced users from participating in the commons. That means you will be having a net negative effect on the commons. Even though you do a lot of good categorizing.

Also, believe it or not, you are sometimes wrong. Sometimes your position on a particular issue could be combined with other people's views to come up with a synthesis position. This has happened many times to me, and it is an amazing humbling thing about wikimedia/wikipedia. 2 heads are often better than one. --Timeshifter 09:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What I assume or do not assume, think or do not think is my private domain, and doesn't concern this project, which is not a sect or denomination. “Good faith/bad faith” are indeterminate concepts, which are not documented in this project, so theses concepts elude any logical analysis. Such notion is completely pointless, does not concern Wikimedia Commons in any way, and would be eradicated from our vocabulary. This project is affected by what people do and tell in its website, that's all.

There is no flaw in my logic: I could tell “ignorance” as well, it was only a striking example. My discourse don't always exactly reflect my thoughts: ignorance is far more common than imbecility, and I should surely be short of criteria to make the difference.

I don't wish to alienate users from participating in the Commons. However, acting in a coordinate way is essential for this project. Guidelines or rules (including custom rules) must be enforced. I am not happy to do that, so I'll prefer delegate such tasks.

Of course, I am sometimes wrong. It doesn't matter. What's important is to have right decision processes. --Juiced lemon 11:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on the commons come from consensus, rough consensus, etc, and are not always necessarily the "right" decision. Such is life. :)

So even if we avoid the cult-like request to "assume good faith" we still need "Guidelines or rules (including custom rules)" concerning our interactions in the decision-making process.

Civility is a common rule or guideline around the world. It is usually notoriously rude "Ugly Americans" (like me) who have the most to learn in this area.

So instead of asking you to consciously "assume good faith", then maybe it can be asked that you consciously use civil language no matter what you actually think. No one knows for sure whether people are assuming good faith or not anyway. --Timeshifter 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am usually civil. User:Darapti already asked user:Rursus to improve his way to categorize files, so I felt the need to be a little sharper. The controlled use of sharpness is difficult for me, but I think I am still better than administrators when they warn other users. --Juiced lemon 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about some administrators at times. But that doesn't give you the right to be uncivil too. People can complain about the incivility of admins too. Rather than be sharper, I suggest letting it go for at least a couple days, and come back to it later when both people have had time to think about it. People change their minds after sleeping some. You too. :) --Timeshifter 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour, Je suis disponible si besoin est d'un autre admin francophone. Cordialement, Yann 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

That wasn't my doing. Regarding my categorization: I think it was justified. A sundial is an instrument using astronomy/geometry to timekeep. Now, please come back and edit, make a deal with SB_Johnny et. al., and regain your right to edit! For my part you're forgiven. Rursus 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly message. I started a discussion in your talk page precisely because you think your categorization is correct.

Unfortunately, the documents which explain how to categorize files are not very clear. Regarding the sundial, the file would be put where other people are supposed to search it.

People who search sundials write “sundial” in the search field, then they find easily the Sundial gallery and the Category:Sundials category.

There was no suitable subcategory for Image:Sundial (PSF).png, so I have categorized directly in Category:Sundials. In the same category, you'll find also a .svg version of the same drawing.

The shared features of sundials are used to categorize properly the category Category:Sundials. So, the files in Category:Sundials or “sundial” subcategories would not be categorized according to these shared features. Extra categories may regard only specific features.

If we don't proceed in this way, the main categories would be cluttered up with unsorted files, and the browsing in the database would be very slow and difficult. --Juiced lemon 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Post offices

Post office in Villa Las Estrellas, a settlement on King George Island

Hi Juiced lemon, may I trouble you with a question related to categories? While sorting some so far uncategorized images of King George Island, I came across this post office at Villa Las Estrellas, a Chilean settlement on an Antarctic island. I've already put this image into a newly created category for this village (which in turn has been put into a newly created category for this island). But I wonder how to put this image best into the category tree of post offices.

The above referenced category for post offices consists so far just of country-wise subcategories plus a sub-category fulfilling the same purpose with some additional countries. There are so far no post office subcategories for Antartica. I have the following questions:

• Should this image be put into a subcategory Post offices in Chile as it is an Chilean post office? But it is not really in Chile, even if it belongs to Chile.
• Should this image be put into a subcategory dedicated to post offices in Antartica? But where to put such a category? This category should surely not grouped with by-country-categories, should it?
• Or, giving up on this strange case, should I simply dump it in the top-level post office category?
• And finally, how is the current inconsistency best resolved? Shouldn't all post-office-in-country-categories be moved into the by-country-subcategory even if it will be the only subcategory of the general one to be open for other criteria?

Anyway, as strange as this case might be, I hope to learn more about the category system through this case. Thanks for your help, --AFBorchert 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The preposition in refers usually to the location, if possible selected according to Commons:Territorial division of the World. You can create Category:Post offices in Antarctica, otherwise Category:Post offices is correct for this image.

I agree this image wouldn't be put in a subcategory Post offices in Chile. However, Category:Post of Chile suits, since this category don't depend on the location: a postal system includes also the mail from embassies, ships, military units abroad, etc.

There are notable inconsistencies in our classification system, because we have categories for a specific location which are categorized in categories related to national origin. As long as people can find what they search, I think we have to adapt ourselves to this approximative logic. --Juiced lemon 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Juiced lemon, I've followed your advise and put this image into Category:Post offices in Antarctica and Category:Post of Chile (which I had not noticed before). Regards, AFBorchert 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Name calling

I will only ask you just once nicely: "Do not call me stupid again and stop threatening me." Lycaon 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't call you “stupid”. I was talking about one or more edits which are an infinitesimal part of your life: nobody is perfect (me either). I don't threat you neither: significant changes would be discussed. --Juiced lemon 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

I have replied to your email, but I will not be unblocking you at this time. I suggest you read the comments here and work based on that. Thanks, — Giggy 22:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Juiced lemon,
I've read rumours that you intend to leave Commons due to the dispute mentioneed above. I would really regret this, not least due to your competence in categorization on Commons. I hope you will think this over. -- Túrelio 11:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Spherical bearings

Image deletion warning

Category:Spherical bearings 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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--WikipediaMaster 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Thrust bearings

Image deletion warning

Category:Thrust bearings 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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

I have regrouped all images in the Category:Bearings into subcats for ball and roller bearings in a first step. Additionally created subcats for drawings that are added also in Category:Technical drawings now. The spherical and thrust bearings are now in a firsts step also splitted into roller, and ball bearings. This drilldown can be continued further in future. Best regards --WikipediaMaster 17:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

categories for place names

hi there Juiced lemon,

I have a question regarding these here Category:Bretagne, Category:Burgundy. IMO cat.s should be in English, so shouldn't these be moved? Compare Category:Bavaria, Category:Lesser Poland Voivodeship and Category:Tuscany. Gryffindor 08:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Chemical element

Hi, I'd worked in Chemical element, and I think would be better move it to Chemical elements. --Tano4595 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Juiced lemon has been inactive since December 2007. Better propose this at Talk:Chemical element. Gallery titles are usually singular, not plural, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Juiced lemon is blocked indefinitely. Superm401 - Talk 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)