User talk:Dosseman

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


About File:Anatolian Civilizations Museum 1458.jpg[edit]

Dear sir, I have indeed mistakenly added the Category:Hittite metalwork to this photo, having wrongly thought it to be made of metal not terracota. In my defence, I was classifying numerous pictures of Hittie works which were very loosely categorized and whose descriptions were often very vague. Of course I will try to pay more attention, but the best solution to be assured that your photos will be correctly categorized is to add precise descriptions of the objects they show, with name, date, origin, as you did, but also, if possible, some indications about the material, as it is sometimes difficult to identify it properly. Thank you for sharing your pictures here. Best wishes, --Eunostos (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. ~riley (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Islama[edit]

Islama köfte, afiyet olsun.

Category:Terzibaba Camii ve Külliyesi[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the pictures in and for opening Category:Terzibaba Camii ve Külliyesi. However, I cannot say thanks for opening some new cats which are totally out of our practice and commonsense. Please just as I just did you must make a Category:Mosques in Erzincan if that is what we need for putting Terzibaba Camii ve Külliyesi in. Please look carefully into how I created that cat. People can and want to know more than what Dosseman pictured but what cities have which buildings, which of them are mosques, to which province that city belongs, so that we can make an overall look for all buildings in that province (mosques etc) "in context". If you do not learn rather soon our categorization system and practices I am afraid I will have to ask a ban for opening new cats by you. As appreciative and thankful as I am for all those beautiful photographs you upload to Commons I am as much or even more concerned about who, how and when will be able to correct all your categorization mistakes. Please do not misunderstand me; I only care much for Commons and for the representation of my country, Turkey, in it. Thanks and best regards. --E4024 (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Erzurum Nuri Mehmet Paşa Camii 1615.jpg - Duplicate name[edit]

Hi, while requesting renaming of your files, you requested that two different files should be moved to the same name. Do you want to choose a different one for File:Erzurum Nuri Mehmet Paşa Camii 1615.jpg or should I ust ass a (2) at the end of the name? TommyG (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC) @TommyG: I am utterly surprised how fast the system (and obviously you) work. As for the 1615ː could you use the numer 0911 for the interior, and 1615 for the exterior? Then things will be alright. Thanks for contacting me. As for answeringː is this the correct way, writing on my talk page?Dosseman (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Kuyu_kebabı_in_Kastamonu[edit]

Category discussion warning

Kuyu kebabı in Kastamonu 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!


E4024 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kastın ne Moni?[edit]

“Kastamonu is the capital district of the Kastamonu Province” is a wrong sentence. WP is not a reliable source, worse for the case of EN:WP, IMHO. If it were a serious place I could show you examples of other province articles that begin with different formulas. (Even that difference in style is another proof of lack of consistency / seriousness.) Whatever. I see that you're making an effort to learn Turkish. Whenever you reach the level of understanding and enjoying Turkish humour as it's expressed in the title (not by me, but by an urban legend of Kastamonu :) you will find yourself somewhere where you will say, "Oh, I know Turkey". Best wishes. --E4024 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you mention knowing examples of wrong sentences of articles about provinces (c.q. districts, towns), why not make it a project, alone or with some others, to correct them? If they’d correct 5 a day, in a few weeks (81 provinces, so a bit over two weeks) the problem would be solved. I’d suggest a thing like “Kastamonu is a town that is the capital of a district (also called Kastamonu or extended to Kastamonu Merkez for Central Kastamonu) and of the Kastamonu Province, Turkey. This article is about the town.” Problem solved? I wanted to make this change ad once. But I failed to find if that part about Merkez is right. In an article “List of districts in Turkey“ it says “One district of a province is designated the central district (merkez ilçe) from which the district is administered.” But is this by law, or just colloquial? Could you let me know?
However, that does not solve the problem that many categories do not indicate which organisational level they concern. Province, district, town? As part of the just mentioned project I’d suggest adding proper handles there too. If not, the mixing of the three will continue, is my prognosis.
As for humour, I found the anecdote in your title (on the web it generally was “Kastın Neydi Moni”). I did not laugh my head of though. The humour I like is more of the English/Dutch variety, hard-boiled and without respect for authority. I do hope to understand more of the language though, as it’s fascinating. Did you read Lewis’s “The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success”. That’s a book to my liking. His grammar was a bit too condensed for me, but I still use it from time to time, along with four others. Dosseman (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User_talk:Dosseman/Archive 1

Amphitheater[edit]

Amphitheater

Kurz zur Erklärung: Amphi (αμφί) heißt auf Griechisch "ringsum", ein Amphitheater ist also ein ringsum mit Zuschauerreihen ausgestattetes Theater, wie z. B. das Colosseum in Rom, alle anderen, wie auch das in Prusias ad Hypium (Konuralp), sind schlicht Theater. Grüße --Kpisimon

(talk) 13:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich war einigermaßen erstaunt das dies die Reste eins Amphitheaters sein sollten, aber las das in die englische Wikipedia, und nahm an das sei richtig. Ich habe schon an dem Autor dieser englische Text geschrieben und ihm bzw. sie um Brunnen gefragt. Ich habe auch gebeten die Nahmen unter meine Bilder zu ändern (kann ich nicht selbst machen), und werde, wenn ich mehr Weiß ach die Beischriften überschreiben. Dosseman (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke für Deine Mühen --Kpisimon (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Kahramanmaraş_Citadel[edit]

Category discussion warning

Kahramanmaraş Citadel 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!


E4024 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Old_style_buildings_in_Kayseri[edit]

Category discussion warning

Old style buildings in Kayseri 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!


E4024 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Old_style_buildings_in_Kozan[edit]

Category discussion warning

Old style buildings in Kozan 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!


E4024 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Street_views_in_center_of_Kozan[edit]

Category discussion warning

Street views in center of Kozan 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!


E4024 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Old_style_buildings_in_Izmit[edit]

Category discussion warning

Old style buildings in Izmit 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!


E4024 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Izmit_Pembe_Köşk[edit]

Category discussion warning

Izmit Pembe Köşk 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!


E4024 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Kastamonu_edge_of_town[edit]

Category discussion warning

Kastamonu edge of town 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!


E4024 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Petra - From the inside.jpg[edit]

Great catch, couldn't agree more. The same structure can be seen in File:20100923 amman60.JPG. So it should be with Category:Umayyad Qasr of Amman. Moved it there and renamed it to Umayyad Qasr of Amman - From the inside.jpg. Thanks. --Tarawneh (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Museum fur Islamische Kunst[edit]

First of all: dont' be sorry, you try to do something good, and generally I appreciate your work. We all make mistakes - you and me. I realize this problem with those general labels (Abbasid Art, Ayyubid art and so on) when I tried to categorize properly collection of the Museum fur Islamische Kunst. All your remarks about it are obviously right for me and I don't pretend that I did everything right. Especially, what you wrote about Ottoman Empire Art and Turkish Art - yea, you are right. Maybe I made some decisions in a hurry. But, at the same time, it is difficult problem and in my experience we cannot expect perfection in relations between categories. There will always be cases like this. That being said, I must admit that Museum fur Islamische Kunst was the first collection that I tried to categorize and I bring with myself my historical approach - I feel good with dynasties, periods, and so on. But now I have doubts if it is so good approach to art collections. First, historical periods divisions are not always the same as art periods divisions. Second, sometimes (in fact rather often) you have something like item from 10th century Egypt and you just don't know if it is Abbasid or Fatimid. So maybe we better categorize by the type of objects, not by periods? Well, now it is done, it is not perfect, but still I think that it is better than this uncategorize mess that was before. Thanks for all your photos. I really love this museum, and it puts a smile in my face that someone appreciate its collection.--Nous (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we are in agreement there. And indeed I have had the case come along of things from Egypt, and the museum not indicating to what period it belonged. I am beginning to find out it is wise to keep to inventory number and use in to search in databases. The Berlin museums have a rather good database and I managed to find a lot of extra information, beyond what they put on the tags with the exhibits. It was my first visit to Berlin anyhow, and I loved their museums. It will be a main reason to return. Thanks for your reaction. Dosseman (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pergamon Panorama Zeus group of Great Frieze 8255.jpg[edit]

Hi Dosseman,
I assume that all these information panels/boards were photographed indoors (you standing indoors), right? As their contents is above COM:TOO, it's considered to be copyrighted. Regrettably, indoor-shots are not covered by freedom-of-panorama exception in Germany:

--Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Túrelio,
I earlier saw that you probably protected pictures I took in the Tiergarten explaining they were "fop" (in Dutch to fop someone means to play a joke on him, only after months of Wikipedia labour I found what it meant. There ought to be a dictionary of Wiki-terms ). Now I see you refer to notices I took pictures of, rather then writing the text as a description. I suppose you and Wikipedia policies are right in copyright matters. So let it be, your assumption was on the dot. On the other hand I think some of the copyright laws are too silly for words. You may delete the afflicted notices, too bad for people who want to be informed.
For your work in general, thanks, I've come across it regularly. Dosseman (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you very much for all of your marvellous contributions of photography in the Anatolian and the surrounding geographies, and another thank you for tirelessly uploading them into the WC every single day! Keep up the good work. Emre Dokur (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Exterior of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche[edit]

You have removed hundreds of files from this category, and some now left w/o any category at all, despite the fact they are all showing the Gedächtniskirche. This is approaching Cat-a-lot misuse, please revert your edits. --A.Savin 13:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used "check for overcategorisation", and deleted files (from the category I was checking in) that were marked as being present in several categories. In particular there were very many pictures by one photographer (Willy Pragher) from the '50s and '60s that were in the "History of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche", organized according to year, and often in four, five or more other categories as well. For all I know they would remain in those sub-categories. After all, what is the use of having a category showing the church before it was ruined? I may have misunderstood the function of the "check for overcategorisation" but in good faith.
I will revert my edits but please give me some time to do so. And could you advise me on where I went wrong? And/or advise me for a better method to check on the hundreds of pictures that obviously were clogging this category, with doubles in others? It would be ideal if you could provide me with a list of pictures that now lost their category, I thought I did not create any such orphans. Dosseman (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not overcat to have a file both in "history of..." and "exterior of...", these two subcats are not depending on each other.
Sorry, but I cannot make such list, it is too much to have a look at each of your edits. There were three of my own pics on my watchlist, this one and two others; these are only three examples out of many.
What I can do is just rollback all your recent Cat-a-lot edits. I have no time & desire to look at each one, sorry! Cat-a-lot is to handle with care, if you cannot, do not use it at all, Regards --A.Savin 14:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you could roll-back all cat-a-lot edits I made today, that will save me hours of un-editing, so please do so. The first was of Berlin Breitscheidplatz 048988a.jpg at 9.41 hrs on the 15th of january. I started it as there was the message
"This category has become too crowded. It should list very few images directly." I thought I might help, but it seems people prefer a mixed-bag of 500+ pictures to some searching by themselves. I for one will not try to clear it up. I thought that, with a main category "Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche" its history pictures and exterior might be considered to be in the same category. Dosseman (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just reverted a bunch of these to my photos, which left the photos uncategorised in the main category tree. Rolling back all of these edits makes sense to me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for doing so. I asked if A.Savin would kindly roll-back all edits to this church. I hope he'll do so. As I wrote above I started it all as there was the message"This category has become too crowded. It should list very few images directly." I thought I might help, but it seems people prefer a mixed-bag of 500+ pictures to some searching by themselves. In my mind the category ís overcrowded, but I do not have the wherewithal (or, now, the inkling) to do something about that. I often find that "exterior" is taken rather wide, with pictures of an object taken from several streets away included. For me it rather is a close-up of a building. Dosseman (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done. Please note an exterior is not only a remote view, facade details are as well. --A.Savin 18:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot. And in an answer to Mike Peel (above) I wrote "I often find that "exterior" is taken rather wide, with pictures of an object taken from several streets away included. For me it rather is a close-up of a building." So there we do agree (I take many pictures, precisely of details, and found the richer Berlin houses have lovely (if somewhat bourgeois, Biedermeier) decorations. Dosseman (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche 0665.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche 0665.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pictures_of_little_relevance_to_the_main_category[edit]

Category discussion warning

Pictures of little relevance to the main category 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!


Kadı Message 11:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pictures_of_little_relevance_to_the_town[edit]

Category discussion warning

Pictures of little relevance to the town 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!


Kadı Message 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can do better than this![edit]

Thank you for your uploads from the Alte Nationalgalerie. But filling out the Information-Template like this

Description
English: I have no information.
Date
Source Own work
Author Dosseman

should be below honor of an active Commons Contributor. If you photograph in a museum there is always an information plate right next to the painting. Just photograph it and you don't need to claim that "You don't have information" You are also not the author of the artwork. That is the painter! Have you ever heard about Artwork Template, or Template Art Photo? If you use it you can add the information provided by the museums and you can also differentiate between the copyright status of the artwork and the one of your photograph of this artwork. I am looking forward to more uploads from you. Keep up the good work, but try to do it better! Wuselig (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not realize I had a personal coach in matters common. I find I'm about 10 years older than you, and want to spend my time on sensible things. If you think I'd spend it on filling out silly forms like the ones you suggest, you can wait forever. It would have been nice if you’d taken the trouble of informing me you complain about my treatment of the “Träumerei” picture. I have uploaded its “information provided by the museums” so you can see there was not that much. I do not understand your statement “You are also not the author of the artwork. That is the painter!” . The museum would have stopped me if I started painting on or in it. Or is this a statement of a fact, so obvious, that I knew it before I even entered a museum? The “you can also differentiate between the copyright status of the artwork and the one of your photograph of this artwork” keeps me non-plussed. Luckily my pictures are in well over 120 books, magazines and so forth without my running into trouble with the law, so I guess I knew that part. As for your looking forward to my uploads, it may surprise you I have over 127.000.000 views on a private site, so I do not care a bit about your approval. Please enjoy my work in the future, but don’t ever bother me again. Dosseman (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you don't have a personal coach. And from your reaction I would recoil if anybody should offer me that job. I see you don't want to bother to understand what I am trying to convey to you. I did change the description of Träumerei according to the information available to you. So yes. I still stand with my statement: "you could do better!" But of course you can also leave the job of improving the description of your uploads to others. I will do so, if I come accross them in my line of work, because I also want to spend my time on sensible things. Wuselig (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good division of labour. I sometimes go to extremes to get proper information, but not if I feel the information is widely available. And what I feel relevant obviously is not what you want. So be it. My greatest irritation is that “You can do better than this!” is one word removed from “You must do better than this!” C’est le ton qui fait la musique. Dosseman (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you seem to be enjoying museum photography, so yes, I think it is kind of sad, that you care so little about also labeling these museum photos better. Look at Träumerei once more. I just added the Wikidata entry to the description and see how much more information is automatically added. I also added your image to the Wikidata-item, which makes your image even more easily findable across more Language-wikis. Just think about that. Wuselig (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]