User talk:JesseW

Category:Exteriors of library buildingsEdit

I disagree strongly with your making this a meta-cat and removing files from it without any discussion. Many libraries will have several interior and exterior photographs -- very few will have a separate category for the two. This is clear from the fact that only two remain in the cat.

I count around 160 images removed from the cat, showing around 110 different libraries. Since 160 is a single page load, I see no particular urgency in breaking this category up. It might be logical to add a cats for each of the several libraries that have multiple images in the 160, but otherwise I will probably restore it to the way it was before you began. I would ordinarily ask you to do it, but I can use AWB and do it relatively quickly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, what the hell? Those were exteriors of libraries! -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I should have linked the various discussions better. The history (at least my part of it), is as follows: I came across the category a few weeks ago and added a number of images to it. This led User:Skeezik1000 to remove one of the images I had added, and when I asked him about it, the resulting discussion convinced me that it would be better to treat it as a meta category. I marked the category as a meta-cat, and waited a few days to see if anyone objected, then went ahead and removed the images. I now realize I should have, at a minimum, linked the discussion on the category's talk page, and probably added a CfD entry, also. I have no objection to you re-adding the images. Again, sorry for the mis-communication. JesseW (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Beryl Ford CollectionEdit

I disagree with the interpretation that all images from the Beryl Ford Collection, now held by the Tulsa City County Library (TCCL) must be removed from Wikipedia. I am currently working on a response, which I expect to complete this weekend. I think the controversy around these images should be addressed by Wikipedia in more detail. Bruin2 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I hope that they can be kept, too. It's a matter of figuring out the details of how and when they were published, and how that interacts with public domain laws. I look foward to your response. JesseW (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Jesse, I have just posted a response in the Wikimedia Commons at User:Bruin2/Discussion. I hope the location is satisfactory to inform whoever in the Wikipedia organization that needs to read it.Bruin2 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The actual location was User_talk:Bruin2#Concern_about_Use_of_Beryl_Ford_Images_on_Wikipedia. I've copied it to the DR page, and responded there. JesseW (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Goats and blackberriesEdit

This change and others: why wouldn't photos of goats eating blackberry bushes belong in Category:Blackberries? - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the fact that what they are eating are blackberry bushes isn't particularly evident (or important) visually. If we had Category:Goats used for brush clearance and it has subcategories by what the goats were eating, putting Category:Goats eating blackberry bushes into Category:Blackberries would make sense to me, but otherwise, it seems too minor a detail to include it in the category. I won't revert if you want to re-add them, though. JesseW (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons talk:List of meta category criteriaEdit

Hello, JesseW. Are you sure to make the bot work like the search engine? I guess if I do add a %, it might generate a lot of false positives. (example: by area of responsibility would be included in by area). --zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It may make more sense to have the bot work the way you currently have it. In that case, we should add a note to the page so people are not confused by the numbers not matching. JesseW (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok :) --zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


An icon refers to something else, and doesn't really intend to attract attention to itself (but rather to what it refers to). The "Womens-love-vs-mens-love-joke.svg" image conveys a complete message by itself, and so seems to me to be much more like a sign than an icon (though of course it is composed of symbols which can be icons when occurring separately) AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyway User:Cathy_Richards seems to agree: -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, that generally makes sense. Thanks for the discussion. JesseW (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Signboard Herculaneum.jpgEdit

Hi JesseW,

Thanks for being interested in my Pompeii and vesuvian sites pictures. I re-added the category "signs" you removed, because this engraved stone is really a "sign", a commercial signboard for an ancient roman shop. But the category you added is very relevant too.

Cheers, --Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I moved it to a subcategory, Category:Shop signs in Italy -- but thanks for insisting that "Inscribed stones" isn't specific enough. JesseW (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JesseW".