Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mhmrodrigues!

-- 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


== An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Margarita of Austria Duchess of Tyrol.jpg ==

Deutsch  English  español  français  hrvatski  italiano  Nederlands  sicilianu  Tiếng Việt  മലയാളം  فارسی  +/−


Dialog-warning.svg
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Margarita of Austria Duchess of Tyrol.jpg, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY), BY SA (CC BY-SA), CC0 (CC0) and PDM (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.
Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

File:YolandaFlanders.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:YolandaFlanders.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!

Kaho Mitsuki (Dis-moi) 11:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

House of Baden-Durlach is sub-branch of House of BadenEdit

This should answer your first question

No need to categorize them under House of Baden, if they are already properly categorized. Please revert your recent changes yourself. --Wuselig (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wuselig:ǃ I'm doing like the categories of "House of Hohenzollern", "House of Ascania" or "House of Wittelsbach". I'm joining all members in the main category, and at the same time they are kept separated by branch. They are from the Baden-Durlach line, but it's not a lie that they are from the "greater" House of Baden, which originated the branches. Hope you understand my point of view and thank you for your opinionǃ Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Have a closer look here. --Wuselig (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hiǃ @Wuselig:ǃ I understand the undercategorization, but the rules apply to many different subjects. I would say that, specifically in families or noble houses, it's more easy to find a nobleman in the main category than in other subcategories. Thank you for your help, but I feel that cases of noble houses should be different. But hey, it's my opinionǃ I will not force you to accept my point of view. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It is not to me, or you to change the categorization sytem on Commons. I agree that it more often than not hides files in boxes that need some knowledge of the structure of the business. But if they are all piled into one big box, sorted only by the aribtrary naming system chosen by the individual uploaders, they are hidden just as well. So please, start doing the clean-up work and don`t expect others do do it after you. I see your works only on files and categories on my watch-list. I have to fear that there are many more sites you are doing similar re-categorizations. --Wuselig (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel stalked. I think I can have a different view on this, right? I don't think that what I'm doing is directly jeopardizing the research method in Commons. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
You are not beeing stalked. I am merely checking my watchlist regarding my activities on Commons. I don't have the time and nerves to go after all your other edits in different families. But if you want, we can take this to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, either by you accusing me for stalking, or me for calling out your interpetration of the categorization scheme into question. It is on you to clean up, not on others to clean up after you. --Wuselig (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh by the way, @Wuselig:ǃ Maybe you can answer me this. Why is James margrave of Baden-Hachberg (1584-1590) called III, when he is obviously the second James ruling? The James called II was an Archbishop-Elector (and is numbered II because he is the second Archbishop), and if he was a margrave in Baden, it was merely titular. The Archbishop shouldn't be counted. I didn't see anything that numbered James III as the third margrave of this name. Shouldn't he be renumbered II? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Without going into any original research looking into family trees, I categorically say: No it shouldn't be renumbered. If he goes by this name in common literature, that is the number that sticks. It is not Wikimedians who decide on numbering schemes. It is the literature we source. --Wuselig (talk)
@Wuselig:, at least you can personally agree with me that the numbering is strange, right? Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't even take the time to delve into the family tree. So no, I do not agree, that the numbering is strange. For me it was sufficient that other sources, more knowledgeable than you, or I, are calling him that way. That was as far as my research needed to go. --Wuselig (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wuselig:, sorry , I didn't know you didn't research for the family, I'll ask to another user. Thank you anyway. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
This is all the research you need: Wikidata, James III, Margrave of Baden-Hachberg, Jakob III. (Baden-Hachberg). On top of your over-categorizing, you should not go into the act of undoing what is layed down in numerous references listed to that person. --Wuselig (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)