User talk:Parabolooidal

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Commons:Help desk: Harassment vs Critism[edit]

Hm, User:Parabolooidal, minutes ago i read your 'personal oppinion' on Commons:Help desk, imho, what you User:Parabolooidal do practice there is public harassment ... Strange or interesting, one day after the deletion of User talk:Parabolooidal, you User:Parabolooidal started imho a 'public campaign' instead accepting 'critism', so a not-Adminstrator Wikimedian is not able to 'check' what you're telling as your 'personal truth' ...

In fact, you User:Parabolooidal are wrong, and you User:Parabolooidal, so im remember, have been contacted three times on User talk:Parabolooidal, triying te explain, or so you do like to miss-understand, we also may call it to 'help', but you User:Parabolooidal reverted ...

User:Parabolooidal, p.e. the so-called temple, in short, please see the 'revision history' is documenting what 'really happened' ;-) btw: Category:Religious buildings may be much less 'fitting' than Category:Churches in Mizoram or so you prefer Category:Temples in Mizoram, so my personal oppinion ... btw just one of several hundred 're-categorizations' done days before you got the first 'critism' by me ... please check your contributions vs mines.

Finally, User:Parabolooidal, please stop immediately that xxx kind of 'campaign', or in your words harassment, i repeat, in that public way, after refusing every opportunity to discuss from Wikimedian to Wikimedian, imho a very good reason to contact Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems so you repeat that, your words, kind of public "harassment" again !!

PS: it's your turn to end that 'kind of different oppinions', and of course it's ok to revert, but don't REPEAT that kind of imho 'public harassment' again !

Final regards, Roland zh (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Roland zh[edit]

Roland zh, I honor your views and no longer am categorizing images that are uncategorized. I did 4,653 image categorizations in the four months I was active. You were the only person to complain, but others may have felt the same way and just not voiced their opinion to me. My apologigies to all I have offended in my attempting to help here. Although I was learning, I guess I was not learning fast enough. Best wishes, Parabolooidal (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Rotterdam_School_of_Management 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Timelezz (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DW category[edit]

Replied at Category talk:Artwork depicting Natalia Poklonskaya. Do not re-apply the category until the discussion has been resolved. --benlisquareTalkContribs 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagging file with copyvio(s)[edit]

Hi, please do not tag files for copyvio(s) if there is uncertainty instead you can add "Missing permissions". So the uploader will have the chance to confirm permissions. Thanks.-- ~ Nahid Talk 07:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

ok, thanks! Parabolooidal (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Golden Gate Patan.jpg[edit]

Hi - today you removed two categories from the above mentioned file. Why was that? I think those categories are valuable… --Till (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for doing that. If you think they're valuable, feel free to please put them back. I ran into some problems with the category, and you can probably see your way through what mixed me up. I apologize to you. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Please be more careful with the categorization and avoid the duplication of categories (for instance: Boudhanath) and over-categorization, like you did in the Kali Gandaki Gorge. Thanks. --Stegop (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

ok, I am sorry and I will try. Sometimes the titles and descriptions are confusing, so I make mistakes. Thanks. Parabolooidal (talk)
Sorry, you don't seem to be trying anything. For instance: see what it is en:Natural heritage and tell me if man made monuments can be such a thing. And you keep creating duplicate categories. My patience is almost over... Regards. --Stegop (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Please explain as I don't understand. I'm going by the designation "Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal with known IDs" and using the name on the item so designated. For example, everything in the Bhaktapur Darbar‎ category (which I notice has been deleted by you?) was put there because each image put in there has that ID designation on its file. Look at
Bhaktapur darwar by ST (4).JPG
, for example. It is titled that by it's official ID. The file says:
English: Bhaktapur Darbar
Flag of Nepal.svg

This is a photo of a monument in Nepal identified by the ID NP-BT-01

Date , 00:16:38
Source Own work
Author सृजना

What is the point of the official IDs if they aren't to be used? Is it meaningless? I looked around for instructions but there aren't any that I could find. Why does the Commons bother to have people upload "Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal with known IDs" if they're not used? Please explain so that I can understand what's going on. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention CULTURAL but NATURAL. --Stegop (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I marked Category:Bhaktapur Darbar to delete because it duplicated Category:Bhaktapur Durbar Square. You did that kind of thing countless times. I have spent the last couple of hours correcting mistaken edits of yours and I am pretty sure that I could well spent much more. --Stegop (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that I made a mistake in using "Natural" vs "Cultural" for which I'm sorry. But it was mistake that can easily corrected by changing a few overall categories, and one that I would have quickly caught myself. I don't think what you corrected took "countless hours". I would have caught the Category:Bhaktapur Durbar Square duplication also. And I correct plenty of errors made by others without fussing about it. Have you looked at the thousands that I have correctly categorized? And almost all of the hundreds of categories I have created still exist or were immediately corrected by me. And you avoided answering my question. Why don't you try to be helpful? Please explain some things to me rather than being rude, using all caps. How are the template names put on thousands of images to be utilized? Do you really want to discourage new editors from trying to help sort these many many images uploaded with the templates? (I see from your talk page that you've made enough mistakes that perhaps you could be tolerant of those newer editors make.) Please try to be understanding and helpful to others. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to discourage anyone, I appreciate the effort you have been doing and I am tolerant, otherwise I would have request that you were blocked. But since you have the work, it isn't better if it is well done? I am only bothering you because you keep repeating the same kind of mistakes. BTW: Sure I make mistakes, but nearly everything you see in my talk page isn't related with mistakes I have done, but with images that I moved from wikipedias to Commons which didn't respect the rules, so the mistakes were not mine, but from those who posted the images in the wikipedias. Regards. --Stegop (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. But I will point out that in moving images from wikipedias to the Commons, one of the tasks is to check whether the image complies with the Commons standards first. Yes, you made common newbie mistakes, but one I have been careful to avoid making in any of my moves! (Blowing my own horn!) I think if you really look at my what I have done, my good work far out ways my learning mistakes, which usually I fix myself. I work in a wide variety of topics, and I admit that I know less about Nepal than most others areas and made stupid mistakes. But get me blocked if that is your judgment. Parabolooidal (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)