Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Estopedist1!

-- 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

KategooriadEdit

Panen südamele, et ka siin kehtib põhimõte, et pole tarvis lisada sama asja juurde nii ülem- kui alamkategooriat. Näiteks Category:Monuments and memorials in Estonia oli teiste kategooriate kaudu juba varem "Culture of Estonia" alamkategooria ja Category:Stone graves in Estonia oli juba varem kategooria "Prehistoric tombs" alamkategooria. Ja ka siin võiks teha uusi kategooriaid vastavalt vajadusele. Näiteks pilt File:Sagadi mõisa kaalumaja.jpg võib esialgu vabalt kuuluda kategooriatesse "Weigh houses" ja "Agricultural buildings in Estonia" selle asemel, et niiviisi omaette kategooriasse eraldatud olla. Samuti pole erilist mõtet ebamäärasel alusel lõdvalt seotud asju kokku panna nagu siin ja tuleb arvestada, millised pildid on ja võiksid olla seal alamkategooriates, näiteks kaminad, noad, kuivatid, laudad, kaevud jne ei käi ju oma põhiolemuselt rahvakultuuri alla. Kui arusaamine kategooriate süsteemist veel eriti hea pole, siis soovitan esialgu kategoriseerida pilte juba olemasolevate kategooriate piires. Pikne 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

täiesti nõus Sinuga, küll aga on kategoriseerimisel teatav topeldamine mu meelest mõttekas ja kasutajasõbralikkuse huvides vältimatu. Seda on üksjagu isegi Commonsi sakslaste omas (Category:Germany), mida ma olen sageli püüdnud eeskujuks võtta. Püüan seda võimalikult vältida. Samuti nõus, et mõne kategooria tegemisel olen v-o liiga ettevaatav, kasvõi see kaalumaja pilt, sest ma olen üsna kindel, et sinna kategooriasse tuleb juurde, ja pärast ei pea enam ümber kategoriseerima. Folk culture'iga nõus; algul tahtsin sinna koondada rahvakultuuriga seotud (kohati lõdvalt) asjad, ent jätsin selle katki. Tegelt võiks kategoriseerimishuvilistega üldse kuidagi vahetumat koostööd teha, nt Skype'ga --Bioneer1 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(ilmselt kasutajale Pikne suunatud kommentaar)

Hi, I see you tried to fix my categorization actions. Although, most of the reverted actions can be acceptable, I think it is much better to be user-friendly (some overcat is unavoidable) not to try use always some (subjective) logic. Unfortunately my English is not so good to argue at professional level--Bioneer1 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

mu pandud kategooriasüsteem oli enne Su kategooriate ennistamist väga sarnane etwiki kategooriale "Eesti". Ma arvan, et mingit ühtlust võiks taotleda, liiati kui kategoriseerimine pole täppisteadus--Bioneer1 (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Vikipeedia ja Commonsi kategooriasüsteemil on see põhimõtteline erinevus, et esimeses kategoriseeritakse mõisteid ja Commonsis seevastu paljusid pilte, mis käivad ühe ja sama mõiste kohta, nii et Vikipeedia ja Commonsi süsteemi ühtlustamist minu meelest ei saa taotleda. Samuti pole selline lähenemine vastupidi ühtne teiste Commonsi kategooriatega, näiteks Saksamaa kategooriaga, mida väidetavalt eeskujuks võtad.
Samuti on selline kastuajasõbralikkus kahe otsaga ehk mida rohkem on kategooriapuu alamad astmed ülemalpool dubleeritud, seda raskem on selliste n-ö pseudoalamkategooriate seast leida muid alamkategooriaid, mis viivad kategooriateni, mis pole dubleeritud ja lõppude lõpuks ei tea nii, kust mida otsida, kui loogika asemel tuginetakse suhtelisele kasutajasõbralikkusele. Pikne 06:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories fykiEdit

Hi, as being tagged {categorize} has been fixed, please see here, thx Roland zh (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

Ma arvan, et väikeste kohtade ehitiste jaoks pole omaette kategooriaid (nt Category:Buildings in Turba) esialgu tarvis. Süsteem läheb nii väga kirjuks, ilma et sellest kuigivõrd tulu oleks, eriti kui igas sellises kategoorias on heal juhul paar pilti. Optimaalne võiks olla nii, et kui maakonna ehitiste kategooria on juba suureks kasvanud (100–200 pilti, alamkategooriaid arvestamata), siis võiks ehitised jagada omavalitsuste kaupa. Ja kui omavalitsuse ehitiste kategooria ka suureks on kasvanud, võiks mõelda asulate ehitiste kateooriate peale. Kui mõnest konkreetsest kohast on palju ehitiste pilte, siis on muidugi mõtet ka varem eraldi kategooria teha, nii nagu see linnade puhul sageli on. 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:F059:A4B:8DD1:6657 17:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

võiks vähemalt normaalset kasutajanime kasutada :) Üldiselt nõus, ent mu eesmärk oli ehitised "Building in X County" kategoorias täpsemalt kategoriseerida. Üks võimalus on ka lihtsalt "X asula" kategooriasse panna, ilma kategooriat "Buildings in X" lisamata. Hiljem, kui pilte rohkem, siis niikuinii lähevad nad uuesti "X asula ehitiste" kategooriasse. Märgin ka, et kasutajat huvitab enamasti mingi asula objektid ja kategooriast maakonnad otsida ta ei taipa. See on küsitav nt kategooria "Granaries in Saare County" vajalikkus, samas vallati ma ei tahaks neid panna, sest vallad on märksa vähem staatilised haldusüksused kui maakonnad--Bioneer1 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Minu meelest võivad pildid vabalt olla ka otse maakonna ehitiste katgoorias. Need kategooriad pole veel kaugeltki liiga suured. No see, kui alevike või külade ehitiste kategooriad laiemalt vajalikuks osutuvad, võib olla nii kauges tulevikus, et siis võib-olla polegi enam Vikipeediat ega Commonsit. :) Pigem võiks lähtuda praegusest seisust. Ma ei tea, asula on üks võimalik loogiline lüli asjade ruumist kuuluvust puudutavas hierarhias, mitte rohkem loogiline kui vallatasand. Võiks ka arvata, et laiemalt teatakse millegi asukohta eeskätt laiemate üksuste järgi, st kõigepealt kuuluvuse järgi maakonda, siis kuuluvuse järgi valda ja alles siis asukoha järgi mingis külas. Lihtsalt loogiline oleks kategooriapuud arendada alustades üldisemast (vallad enne asulaid) ja tehes kitsamaid jaotisi vajadusel. Igatahes seni pole üldiselt jäetud midagi omavalitsuse järgi kategoriseerimata. Eesti aitadest on juba üle mitme saja pildi, sellepärast oli mõistlik nad maakondade kaupa ära jagada. 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:FDBE:DD36:BEFC:BD38 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kandavas pilsdrupas ar pulvertorni 18. gs..jpgEdit

 
File:Kandavas pilsdrupas ar pulvertorni 18. gs..jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:CancerApp.jpgEdit

Hello!. You should always try to categorize your uploaded media in a more accurate category. In this case Category:CT images of mesothelioma. Before upload a media, you should browse by categories to determine the most convenient one/s (or create a new category). The name (CancerApp) is not appropriate, better Mesothelioma, CT image, 01 or similar. Thanks. Jmarchn (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

definitely, but this is not my picture. It was an uncategorized picture which was also used in Estonian Wikipedia--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
But you try must categorize correctly (Category:Medicine must be without media, only categories). The same problem with File:EndoApp.png, where explain "for diabetes". I categorize it as File:Blue circle for diabetes.svg. Thanks. Jmarchn (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
If I add picture to the upper category then I hope that an expert in the field of medicine will categorize it better--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of empty categoriesEdit

Hi. I see you have been tagging empty categories with "{{delete|empty}}". Thank you for highlighting the problems, but your use of that incomplete syntax makes those cats ugly and puts them into Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage, leaving others to fix your work. Instead of doing that, please tag those cats "{{speedy|[[COM:CSD#G1]] empty}}" or use Template:Category redirect, as appropriate. See also Template:Delete, Template:Speedy, COM:CSD#G1, and COM:DP.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks, Jeff--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Estonia under Soviet occupationEdit

Category discussion warning

Estonia under Soviet occupation has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

--SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Your uploadsEdit

Hi, please only import files here if the author/source information is clear and if you are doing proper aftercare, e.g. filling in the information template as required. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you are still importing a lot of problems to Commons. Please stop importing files. Jcb (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bad name?Edit

Hello! What do you mean by "bad name" here? Hundreds of categories have the years of life in the category name. There is nothing "bad" about that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

if it is really accepted practice in Commons then OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Needs OTRSEdit

Selline kustutamise põhjus ei ütle üleslaadijale midagi ja ta ei oska selle peale midagi teha. Tuleks viidata vähemasti ingliskeelsele abilehele Commons:OTRS või veel parem kui selgitada üleslaadijale lisaks paari lausega eesti keeles, milles asi ning viidata ka eestikeelsete kirjade jaoks mõeldud aadressile. Veel, kui luba puudub, siis selleks tarbeks on Commonsis Template:No permission since, mida saab kasutada kustutamisettepaneku asemel. Pikne 11:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not delete my filesEdit

Sorry, I have no idea how the discussion should happen on that platform. Please do not delete files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Metallilise_sideme_mudel.svg Olunet

Things needing to be categorized by countryEdit

moved here: Category talk:Media needing categories#Things needing to be categorized by country --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Omar Ismail Waberi.jpgEdit

Hi, I've nominated those files you added to the said page as COM:CSD#F7. Also, seems like you added the nom to the wrong page. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

nice work! Yes, speedy delete is correct there. --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Shall I remove the noms? It shouldn't be there in the first place. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 OK deleted from there --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Medical X-Ray imaging JBL05 nevit.jpg and File:Medical X-Ray imaging JBK05 nevit.jpgEdit

Hello!. It is not correct to move these files from Category:Nevit Dilmen Radiology to Category:Medicine. As you can see in Category:Nevit Dilmen Radiology there are thousands of files that are not categorized. Moving them to Medicine does not improve the knowledge of these x-rays. --Jmarchn (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 OK I added better categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Polyarch profile picture.pngEdit

This image has been nominated for deletion, and I can see the context that it could be deleted in. The only reason I uploaded this image was because I have no other way of displaying the image on my user page. Polyarch (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 OK problem solved. See your user page and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polyarch profile picture.png--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Polyarch (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a need for why this pixel image is 16 times larger (in pixel) than needed? -- User: Perhelion 10:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It's to stop the image from automatically being "blurred" by the image displayer Polyarch (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:US Navy 100915-N-6003P-091 Aviation Structural Mechanic Airman Ismayda Acquie receives a flag and condolences from Chief Machinist's Mate (Sel.) Jo.jpgEdit

Hi, when fixing syntax errors, please check the history. The error may be caused by vandalism, like in this case. Jcb (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

media by sourceEdit

Hi, Estopedist1. I noticed that you removed the following categories from Category:Media by source:

I assume you did this because those categories are in more-specific media source categories. However, whereas "media" and "files" are general categories, each of these is in a more-specific "images" category.

Lower-level categories should be more specific, not less. File and media categories don't fit under image categories, just as they wouldn't fit under audio or video categories. In addition, categories named "files" or "media" can have non-image media. Right now these categories have only images, but if non-image media were ever added they would no longer belong in image categories.

So I think these categories need to be either renamed to "images", or recategorized so they are not in image categories. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

actually, it is bigger problem. See, for example, the header in Category:Images by source (should encompasses also video, audio files??). Maybe we do not need categories: category:Image sources (integrated to new category: category:Media sources) and category:Images by source (integrated to category: category:Media by source). So it is a topic of general discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

verwijdering categorie bij hotel restaurant LoenermarkEdit

Kan jij mij uitleggen waarom jij de categorie "Loenen" heb verwijderd bij een foto van hotel-restaurant Loenermark in Loenen? Of controleer jij de categorie Loenen aan de Vecht? --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand Dutch--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

SunseekerEdit

Hi there. Regarding this edit, I don't think that this is "personal text". I believe it is a brand, given sale sites such as this and forum sites such as this. Mindmatrix 13:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

...and I just found the company website (it is owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway). Here's the Forest River RV models. I'll create the relevant categories for this and update the files accordingly. Mindmatrix 13:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
well done!--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:William FaithorneEdit

This is a case of COM:OVERCAT, I believe. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

no. Category:Google Art Project works by William Faithorne is a hiddencat. Ideally there should be cat named category:Paintings by William Faithorne (not a hidden cat)--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think those Google Art categories are a bad idea anyway. Really there should be Category:Google Art, nothing more. This one was created seven years ago. If hidden categories are really not in the scope of OVERCAT then, OK, I have learned something. What you say isn't mentioned at COM:HIDDENCAT. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not put images in the top-level category "Yoga"Edit

Hi, I've moved your image to "Category:Yoga therapy". You could also use "Yoga in India".

Please do not put any images in Category:Yoga --- it's only for other categories as it is HUGE and we have MANY sub-categories, in fact we have sub-sub-sub-categories.

Your co-operation will be appreciated. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment metadataEdit

@JoKalliauer: Related to Special:Diff/372372558. I thought the file's description, but it is rather OK now--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.Edit

I don't browse Wikimedia Commons or anything. I only use it for uploading files that need to be used on other Wikimedia projects.

I'm often busy, so I appreciate edits like this one.

Incidentally, do you know if there is a way that I could search through the file information of multiple audio files that I have uploaded? Tharthan (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tharthan: I didn't get the point. But here are yours uploads: Tharthan's iploads?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Flags by type of imageEdit

Have you seen this conversation? Why are you mass-emptying categories? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

related discussions states that "categorization by file format is generally not allowed". Maybe SVG and some others are exceptions. See for example Category:Images by file format--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

SpammingEdit

Far from keyboard warrior. will follow up meaning of spamming. Learning this shit Butts27 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

MP3 categoriesEdit

Hi, I must have missed some discussion. Can you please point me to discussion leading to emptying for example Category:MP3 files in Swedish. Ainali (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ainali: categorization by file format is generally not allowed. For example,

or the exception Commons:Deletion requests/Category:SVG maps--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read them yet, but it feels very odd since Commons:Categories explicitly recommends them to be added. If that is the consensus, that page should really be changed, and since it have not, I suspect all things you linked to are exceptions to this and that new discussions are needed for at least each file format. Ainali (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Now I have read them, and that was a really weak argument, since it is mostly you stating something on a subpage perhaps no one else even read. I find it odd that the process does not require pinging of the creators of the category even. Ainali (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Since you haven't pointed to any policy documents, but only your own previous argument (which also didn't link to any written policy), I'll soon go ahead and revert your edits as they are against what is written in Commons:Categories. Ainali (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali: if you have strong arguments to save categories circa like: MP3 files of classical music, WAV files of classical music, OGG files of classical music, FLAC files of classical music then we all are waiting--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
My argument is that it seems to be established policy. Quote "In addition there are several other aspects of the images that can be used to categorize the image:.. ..what format?: information about the unusual media type". That should be all that is needed until you show arguments for changing the policy and actually implementing the policy change before doing mass editing. Ainali (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali: there is pending discussion Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Massive_upmerging_and_deletion--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I'll wait for the result of that discussion before doing anything. Ainali (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

redundant?Edit

Hi, you tagged this cat Category:Media of Germany to be categorised for speedy with "redundant", but did not provide information to which other cat it is redundant. --Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Túrelio: What you mean about "other cat"? The main category in this case is "Germany" and all files are moved to the category:Germany--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, had this system-change been discussed? --Túrelio (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
it is rational. Similar cases: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Unsorted pictures of Helsinki, Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:2016 Summer Olympics: unsorted photographs, Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Uncategorized panoramic photographs. But, of course, if someone is put enormous energy to this bad system ("uncategorized X"), then it is normal to show some resistant (eg Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Uncategorized images of Canada)--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
May be, but you know "never change a running system". The difference between these special "to be categorized .. of xx-country" cats versus the mere "xx-country" cat is that the former ones invite users to categorize the contained files. I agree that such kind of maintenance-categories shouldn't go too deep down the category-tree, i.e. country o.k., single cities/provinces/alike may be, but not more specific. So, I don't strongly oppose your approach, but such a systematic change should first be discussed, in general, not for each category, of course. --Túrelio (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
smart kid, user:Túrelio :) Especially, I like this "... invite users to categorize the contained files". Logically, my system is very likely better, but in general human beings aren't very logical: they want challenges and categories like "Uncategorized X" are good challenges :) At the same time, if one category consists of thousands of files, almost no one want to categorise then :( --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving from Category:Uncategorized images of Canada to Category:CanadaEdit

Hi Estopedist. Thanks for your efforts to categorize images. But why did you move images from Category:Uncategorized images of Canada to the top level Category:Canada? I can't see how that is helpful... --P 1 9 9   21:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

CfD closure templatesEdit

When adding {cfdh} before, you must add {cfdf} after. Without (cfdf}, the [sub]pages [Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Uncategorized panoramic photographs] and [Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Scientists from Russia to be categorised by field] were breaking [Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01]. (I see you noticed my fixes there.) thanks. - A876 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete category?Edit

Yes that's fine. Ww2censor (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 OK Category:Maps_uploaded_by_Fæ_to_be_categorised is deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"no indication that related to file format, attention user:DanielPenfield"Edit

Then to what is the word "format" in the sign referring? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@DanielPenfield: I don't know. en:Format is ambigious. The description of the file does not clarify situation--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Well since you're so certain of what it isn't, can you then go through en:Format and say which of those meanings it isn't? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I added category:Formats to this file--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:To be checkedEdit

Hello, I see that you have reverted my edits on Blida and Medea. I have added Category:To be checked, because there was some robot import of images based on these keywords, resulting in a number of images being wrongly categorized (they belong to the provinces of these names, but not the cities). Thus, I had a good reason for adding this cat, while I don't see any good reason for removing it. These categories should be checked (more efficiently by someone local) and files put in the correct categories. If you have a better name that would serve this purpose, please use it.

In cases like this, I think it is better to consult the concerned wikipedian before making hasty reverts.

Moreover, seeing these discussions: User_talk:Estopedist1#redundant?, User_talk:Estopedist1#Moving_from_Category:Uncategorized_images_of_Canada_to_Category:Canada, Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country, there is a lot of people that oppose your approach and have good reasons. Therefore, I recommend that you refrain from making edits that affect large number of files until there is a broader agreement that it is a change for the better. JiriMatejicek (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@JiriMatejicek: You probably mean these files are come from Panoramio. If these Panoramio files are not related to the populated place in question, then this batch should be take together and name like: "category:Hokkaido prefecture (Panoramio check needed)". If they are related to the populated place then no problem. Files in parent category needs category review anyway.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Some of the images in those categories may come from Panoramio, but I don't know who did the mass upload and how. Anyway, there are also other images from different sources (which supposedly should be there), so it would be difficult to separate them. Even some from the batch upload might be in correct category. As for the review, I think that without a label, a) it is unlikely that someone would care to review them, and b) people may not even know that many of the images are in the wrong category. JiriMatejicek (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
P.S. With the Hokkaido example, you suggest a more sophisticated label/category than the one I used. I agree that it would be better, but I'm not skilled enough to do it this way (not sure if it's possible, given the reasons above). Anyway, I think the simple label (that would invite people to check the files) is better than none. JiriMatejicek (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

#metoo, instead of removing the inconvenient message [1], I would prefer that someone resolves the problems resp. categorizes people and events (not just the color of neckties). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@JiriMatejicek, Herzi Pinki: every parent category (eg France, People of France, Amsterdam) should have the category Category:To be checked so it is not acceptable approaching. Better are {{Categorise}} or just write to the category's header "NB!-attention" and explain what is wrong, also possible to use proper talk page--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Then you should make a DR on Category:To be checked. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Herzi Pinki actually I did it, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be checked--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I moved all images in the cat in discussion to Category:Photographs by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, where most of them will get uncategorized. Hope that someone then is willing to walk through and identify the people on the images. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
good work Herzi Pinki!--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I refuse to accept such compliments. I just put the burden of work on other people in a different way. No improvement so far. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: "just write to the category's header "NB!-attention" and explain what is wrong" - this sounds like a good point. Please tell me how exactly to use it or point me to a working example. Thanks. JiriMatejicek (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@JiriMatejicek:  OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:MIDI filesEdit

If you look at the edit history for Category:MIDI files you'll find that the {{Wikidata Infobox}} was not present on the category page when I added {{Main}}. Hyacinth (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:TIFF filesEdit

Why are you mass-deleting files from this category? Was there a discussion to remove the category that I missed? Note that files whose names end in .tif are very likely in the TIFF file format. See Wikipedia:Image file formats and Wikipedia:Tagged Image File Format for details. Davidwr (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: see [2]. What is the point to collect 100 000+ files in TIFF category?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, but even so, this and similar category-emptying should be discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion. Please suspend category-emptying work on this and similar categories until there has been a community discussion. Davidwr (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. I don't see the point, but next time I will do CFD (categories for discussion)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Naraha PA.JPGEdit

@Benzoyl: I don't see dosimeters there!?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Orange number 0.1 is "stand out" in the center of this photo. --Benzoyl (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 OK @Benzoyl: of course it is Commons:de minimis :) Good luck, mate!--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Category talk:Bada Bagh, JehtwaiEdit

The subject talk page is no longer listed for deletion. Thank you for the notice. User:G41rn8 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 OK thanks!--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Suunamiste kustutamineEdit

Tere! Kui sa esitad suunamisi kiirkustutamiseks, siis palun lisa {{speedy}} enne ümbersuunamist, mitte pärast. Kui see panna taha, siis wiki tarkvara näitab kiirkustutamiste kategoorias, justkui tahetaks kustutada tervet faili, ja selleks on kogemust tarvis, et taibata, et ainult ümbersuunamine on vaja kustutada. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 OK püüan meelde jätta selle "bugi"--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your changes in Category:STL files by subjectEdit

Hello Estopedist1!
I saw your changes in Category:STL files by subject. Some time ago I started to sort these files because the category became croweded. I'm glad you continued that path even though I'm not sure about some of your changes. Eg. Category:STL military equipment. What was wrong with having one category for ammunition (Category:STL files of ammunition) and one for weapons (Category:STL files of weapons). Not to say that some objects like Parabellum09.stl or .460 Steyr cartridge-full model MNr°0001.stl can not be considered military equipment. Another example would be Category:STL files of music Instruments. What was the purpose of unsorting them and collecting moving them over to Category:STL files of objects creating pretty much the same problem why I started sorting the files. Another example would be Scan the World - SMK17 - KAS2036 - David With The Head of Goliath (Donatello).stl and 十九夜塔(古河市新久田).stl in Category:STL files of sculptures. I categorised the first one into this category, but not the second one on purpose since one is a sculpture and one looks more like a religious shrine.
I am confused by your edits since some of them don't make any sense to me. Please explain me your edits. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: the core is here: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Specifying_categorizing_by_file_format. STL files are somewhat unique (compared to PNG, JPG, OGG files etc), but if dealing with categorization related to file formats then it is rational to keep only very upper categories and not making eg 1-5 member categories. Most important is that these STL files are in topical categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
it is also possible to use category:3D instead of category:STL files--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Edit

Hi Estopedist1!
Thanks for creating sub category for 12 hours of Sebring 2013. Gillfoto 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject_EurovisionEdit

Category discussion warning

WikiProject Eurovision has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

Robby (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Pre-proposal (deletion) related to WikiProjects' templatesEdit

@Auntof6, Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, Crouch, Swale, ŠJů: I want to do deletion proposal related to WikiProjects' templates. I am collecting ideas.

I am looked through thousands of categories' talk pages and there are two used templates:

In addition, one template is used in categories' pages:

Our WikiProjects-related stuff aren't established yet; also Commons:WikiProject Council is rather inactive. We probably do not want to template every single category and every single file (although enwiki has done it). And if in far future we will use massively WikiProject's templates then very likely they will be put in category's page, not in the category's talk page. Objections for deletion proposal?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

On wikipedia, Wikiproject templates are all on the talk pages, so it seems reasonable they would be here as well. And when something is on a talk page, I don't really seem the harm. I guess I don't strenuously object to you proposing it, but I wouldn't say I support it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Themightyquill (talk · contribs) in that using them on talk pages is fine by me, and if it helps a project manage their work, so much the better. I would prefer to see the heraldry project tag likewise be moved to the talk page...I dislike the clutter that has built up on a lot of categories that most users who are not interested in the 'inside baseball' of wikiprojects and other mechanics have to wade through before they can get to what they really want. Josh (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Note that Category:WikiProject Christianity was recently kept but that discussion was over media rather than an actual project here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
As I can see checking the links, some socalled "WikiProjects" work and their participants use templates to tag categories of their interest. Do you have some indication that they are not contented with this? Are the participants eagerly waiting for your advice on how to improve the functioning of the projects? Please stop to disrupt and destroy and assault everything that does not suit your tastes and ideas. If you don't find something to be beneficial for you, just ignore it. If any wikiproject is not completely dead and abandoned, do not disturb them unless you are a fruitful and constructive participant of the project. We should solve real problems, not create problems where they are not. --ŠJů (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@ŠJů: Raising a question seeking input from a number of users seems like a pretty responsible approach to me and not that of someone out to "disrupt and destroy and assault" as you put it. I often disagree with Estopedist1 on details or even entire proposals, but I voice those in discussions and have generally found this user to be open to well-intended discussion and not dogmatically determined to win their own way at all cost. Josh (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagsEdit

Why are you emptying categories under Category:Uncategorized images of Canada and tagging them with a speedy delete tag citing Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Pochayiv Lavra - files to categorization? That discussion has nothing to do with the categories you are tagging. The current discussion, in which you have participated, is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country, and the discussion (as far as I'm concerned) has not yet resolved, as you've either ignored or failed to address the points I (and others) have raised. Mindmatrix 13:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: see Category:Media needing categories by location. This Canada stuff is last to be removed and then the logical system is established. This "Category:Pochayiv Lavra" is same case. I know it took a lot of your time to establish this uncategorized Canada stuff, but it is not rational and at them moment already unique (other similar categories has been deleted and upmerged)--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
In the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country there are objections to the removal of these categories (at least by me, Gauss (talk · contribs), and P199 (talk · contribs)). None of the concerns mentioned in those objections have been addressed. (To be fair, I believe the discussion has addressed some concerns, such as those of Auntof6 (talk · contribs).) And please don't state as fact that they are "not rational", as that is your opinion. Mindmatrix 17:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Estopedist1, I noted that you put a Speedy deletion tag to Category:Uncategorized images of Copenhagen. I can see that this type of category has been discussed but I cannot find the discussion where a consensus was reached. Generally, I find these categories extremely useful. Can you lead me to the discussion that concluded the deletion of the categories "Uncategorized images of x-city" ? --Pugilist (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pugilist: yes, these are meanless categories, because it is actually same as category:Copenhagen, eg:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Pochayiv Lavra - files to categorization)
Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Media of Severodvinsk needing categories
Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Media of Paris needing categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Closing CfDsEdit

You've been closing a lot of CfD discussions (often resulting in category deletions) where there is definitely no consensus to do so. That's not the way it's intended to work. Just because you have the last word doesn't necessarily make you right, and especially if you don't {{Ping}} the opposer in your comments. Please try to be more patient, or it's going to cause conflict. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: please some examples. So I can analyze my mistakes--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed it over the past few weeks, but these are the three questionable ones that showed up in my feed today:
Personally, I would have supported at least the first two deletions myself and possibly the third, but I wouldn't have proceedd without more discussion and/or more time. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Public domain photographs by decadeEdit

Hello! I request that you restore my edits on the public domain photographs. I believe that it is a good idea to have a collection of public domain photographs by decade, as people may be wishing to seek photographs in the public domain from a certain decade. Thank you. --86.131.140.35 17:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

by default every photograph in Commons should be "public domain". That is the Wikimedia Commons' idea--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Not quite. A lot of the photographs here may be used by people, but are not public domain as such. My intent for the category of the public domain photographs by decade is so that there is a collection of photographs that are well and truly in the public domain. --86.131.140.35 18:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
no need for category. PetScan do the job, see eg https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=15500762 --Estopedist1 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much, but please can you restore the edits, as it took me a lot of time and effort over the course of several weeks. --2A04:B2C2:812:7600:11AD:E589:678F:9D6E 23:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject AustriaEdit

Hi Estopedist1, you have created Category:WikiProject Austria. What is the purpose of this project? Alas, Commons:WikiProject Austria is still missing. Can you please provide a description what the purpose of this category is, what your contributions will be and how you are intending to organize the engagement of volunteers to contribute to the project? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: hints: Commons:WikiProject India, Commons:WikiProject Albania, Commons:WikiProject Pakistan--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I did not create the category. So what do you want to tell me with the hint? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Category talk:MantijeEdit

What should I do? Now it's okay to delete Category talk:Mantije, I managed to find one picture, but I don't know if I can delete the page or know how to do that...--BuhaM (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@BuhaM: only administrators can delete. Now we are just waiting--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

ː I know, I just haven't had any experience like this on the Commons  --BuhaM (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

QuickCfdClose GadgetEdit

I've found closing CfDs to be a bit of an arduous multi-step process, so I started a gadget for streamlining the process. Since I noticed you have closed many CfDs recently, I thought this might be helpful to you. Currently it only handles the closing of the discussion page itself, but when I have time I will expand it to some of the other repetitive tasks like removing the notification templates from the affected categories. See User:BMacZero/QuickCfdClose. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

anti-Russian editingEdit

What's the point of such edits? Can you name a single non-Russian fairy tale featuring this creature? Ghirlandajo (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ghirlandajo: per enwiki en:Firebird (Slavic folklore)--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Why should the Commons follow enwiki at all? It's not the gospel truth. Ghirlandajo (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

File:L'eremo di San Michele a Foce.oggEdit

File:L'eremo di San Michele a Foce.oggHi, I answered here. Many thanks. --Antonella (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

PostcardsEdit

Hello Estopedist1, thanks for your comments at COM:WPPC. If you are interested in postcards, then you can join us as participants. Best regards -- sk (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Georgian and Sinhalese languages in Dravidian categoryEdit

@Estopedist1: Thanks for creating Category:Uncategorized media with description or file name in Dravidian languages but you have mistakenly added Georgian and Sinhalese languages files in Dravidian category, Sinhalese belong to Indo-Aryan language family. Thankyou   Perumalism (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Perumalism: thanks for noticing! Georgian and especially Sinhalese is somewhat similar to Dravidian languages. I try to distinguish them better. If you find someone, just put them to right place, eg to "Uncategorized media with description in Sinhala language"--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

ArticleEdit

Hi Estopedist1; I don't want to be nitpicky, but finally, as I have come across many deletion requests by you starting with "The unused and uncategorised file", I just wanted to point out that you could drop the definite article "The", which would be better English, I think (I'm not a native speaker myself), because, after all, it's not "the" (only or specific), but one of many unused files. Again sorry if this comes across as nitpicky, it just slightly irritated me over time ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: English would be better and clearer if only one article exist. (I call it Neo-English or Super-English) Should be "the" for any cases, like already Irish does :) But OK, I am not the Language God to change whole world language system :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm accustomed to the articles by my native language, (Swiss) German - out of curiosity I just read a bit about the Estonian language which, apparently, doesn't have any articles at all, but demonstrative pronouns are used instead; interesting! German Wikipedia has an example: See elu on vaid vaev ja viletsus ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

CfDEdit

Hello, thanks for your work at CfD. I recommend you get filemover rights, which would enable you to suppress redirects when renaming categories, too. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: thanks for this good advice. It would be very useful for me--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!Edit

 

Hi Estopedist1, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch  English  español  русский  українська  മലയാളം  한국어  中文(台灣)‎  中文(中国大陆)‎  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/− . - FitIndia Talk 11:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Titanic (ship, 1912)Edit

Estopedist1: Exactly. I totally agree. There was only one ship called Titanic, which is the famous ship we know today. At first I looked at the category of its twin, the RMS Olympic and realized that instead of putting the year in which he entered service (1911), the year of his launch appeared, 1910. I tried to do the same in the category of the Titanic. However, I left it because not having much experience in these things, I decided to leave it like this because I did not want to spoil more than the links were so as not to confuse the readers. I tried to revert my changes but failed. Still for these things I think the same as you and if there has only been one ship with that name, no date should be set. If anything, the word "Ship" to identify that refers to the ship and not to movies or series based on its history. Javier0203 (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Categoryː BoluEdit

Thanks for your fast response to my cry for help on Bolu's mess. I decided to do some cleaning myself, many pictures could be moved to Category:Nature of Bolu, and several of those were already there, so were over-categorized. I used cat-a-lot for the first time, and intend to learn more about it and use it. But the problem of there being a province and capital (and as I foundː even a district) with the same name remains and is a problem in several Turkish provinces. It might help if that was indicated straight away, as with the Category:Bolu Province that you pointed out yourself. Dosseman (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Dosseman

Pentaceras australis → Pentaceras australeEdit

Hello Estopedist1,

Thanks for your help with this. Gderrin (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:A886 roadEdit

Did you not get from the comment I made that this was likely to be a contentious move? You've now broken the naming convention for UK roads. Please reconsider, and try a Cfd instead. Thanks Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: thanks for the info! And sorry!--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Pubs in Dublin (city)Edit

  This section has been moved to Category talk:Pubs in Dublin (city)

Category:Remutaka RangeEdit

Know you're very busy. Can you sort me out on my question, please. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your file renamingEdit

Hello. You renamed today two of the files which I uploaded, GallipoliKoart.png ‎and Ferrariskoart Klaushaff.jpg, pretending correcting an obvious spelling error. I would be happy if you would not to this in the future, or even revert your actions, because it was no spelling mistake. The file naming policy of commons clearly allows uploads of media files in any language in any script (coded as UTF-8). An extreme example of what would be allowed, would be me naming files in Swahili but using for this the Armenian alphabet. I used for the relevant two file names the very poorly widespread language called Luxembourgish. The particularity of this language is that it has a binding orthography but no standard. I mean, for instance German knows many dialects but also the Standard German which is called the language. This is not the case for Luxembourgish, although the only TV channel we have and the evening classes use one of the many dialects, the law does not make a difference between the dialects and does not establish one of them as binding standard. A few radio speakers in the national radio channel speak even another dialect as most of their colleagues and this is aired because all dialects are equally allowed. You probably got a message from one of my fellows at the lb-wiki implying that one dialect is the official standard and that all deviation of the "standard" is a spelling mistake. But as said, although one of the dialects is the most widespread nowadays, it is not established as standard by law so that it cannot claim to be the language, all dialects are equal and can claim to be aspects of the same language. However, if you choose a given dialect, you must use the orthography rules which are binding for everybody. If you use the Mierscherdall dialect (i.e. the most widespread nowadays), then the word for map is Kaart and that is the correct spelling according to the Luxembourg orthography, but if you use the group of Southern dialects then the word is Koart and that is the correct spelling according to the Luxembourg orthography. To say it bluntly: your renaming of Kaart Gallipoli.png ‎and Ferrariskaart Klaushaff.jpg ‎are obvious spelling mistakes! Commons allows any language to be used and Luxembourgish knows no standard which would be allowed to claim by law to be the language, so commons allows any Luxembourg dialect to be used for file naming, as long as the binding orthography is used, which had been the case for my files before you intervened. Or, to make it even more obvious: There is a wikipedia in the Alemannic German dialect and I am convinced that Commons allows files bearing an Alemannic German name to be uploaded, hence the rule that uploads of media files shall be in a "language" anyway allows an extensive interpretation of what is a "language". And regarding Luxembourgish, no dialect can claim by law to be the language respectively all dialects may claim to be one aspect of the language. The Southern dialect word "Koart" scrupulously respects the binding orthography rules, so please refrain from renaming files bearing that word. --Otets (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Otets: just add the Luxembourgish description (... Koart) at files in question and no-one is renaming then.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a bit more complicated than that, because unlike file names or discussions at discussion pages, descriptions had to be unified to one dialect chosen by the community, as otherwise texts would become unreadable in a project where everybody can edit even parts of sentences. And descriptions can be changed by normal wikipedians while file names cannot, so descriptions tend to have a short life. But is already ok if the above convinced you to refrain from further renamings. For the rest I found a better solution, I took out the renaming tag (if there would be a discussion page for such cases I would have posted there but I did not find any). --Otets (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Otets: there are many Koart-files which user:Les Meloures wants to be renamed. See Category:Media_requiring_renaming_-_rationale_3--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I know, so far I did not take his renaming-tag away from all my files, just from some where the context is a specific one. In these very minutes I am discussing with Les Meloures on the lb-wiki and later today I will even call him. I write you here only for one reason: please do not rename files because Les Meloures claims it to be an obvious case of misspelling, because it is neither a misspelling nor an obvious case. If Les Meloures and I will succeed to settle this, then I will let you know the result. But for the moment please do nothing because the subject is very tricky and not obvious as claimed in the tag. --Otets (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I spoke yesterday evening with Les Meloures. He brought in an argument from another field of interests with priority over the present discussion, and to which we have to abide. In short, you may continue renaming. --Otets (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing license templates, COM:BelarusEdit

Hello Estopedist1. Please do not remove license templates, like you did in this edit. If you are concerned about the copyright status of a file, please apply the correct copyright tag or nominate the file for deletion. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the info! Yeah, my solution was bad--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)