User talk:Parabolooidal: Difference between revisions

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]

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)[reply]

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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

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

Replied at Category talk:Artwork depicting Natalia Poklonskaya. Do not re-apply the category until the discussion has been resolved. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

, for example. It is titled that by it's official ID. The file says:

DescriptionParabolooidal	English: Bhaktapur Darbar This is a photo of a monument in Nepal identified by the ID NP-BT-01
Date	13 September 2013, 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)[reply]