JdH

JdH has left for good. I can not afford to waste my time fighting idiots like User:Foroa and User:High Contrast who keep deleting my work with no discussion whatsoever, see Category:Solar chimney JdH (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read COM:CAT#Category names? And your work was not deleted, it was moved to Category:Solar chimneys. –Tryphon^☂ 08:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me spell out what has happened. I pretty much wrote that Wikipedia article on the Solar chimney from scratch, and it was me who created the Category:Solar chimney to collect corresponding images that were uploaded by me, and by others who wrote parallel articles on other Wiki's. It was me who had the concept about the Solar chimney article in the first place, and who did all the work, not User:Foroa, not User:High Contrast. In fact they did not contribute anything at all to the subject.

What User:Foroa did is delete the Category I created with no discussion whatsoever, didn't even tell me about it. For unknown reasons he moved my work to a Category he created without explaining why, didn't even tell me about it. When I restored the Category I created he undid my work again, and User:High Contrast deleted the Category I just re-created, again with no discussion whatsoever. This behaviour is outrageous, and totally against the rules of Wikipedia: If you want to change a name of an article or Category you need to have a discussion about it, and explain to people why you think that is, what you don't do is just move in and destroy other people's work. That is against all rules of civility that are supposed to govern Wikipedia.

If you want to have a discussion about it, fine with me, but what should be done first is restore my work, and then we have a discussion. I am not prepared to have a discussion with people holding a knife to my throat; that is uncivilized, and that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work

It now appears that User:Foroa and User:High Contrast have even resorted to vandalizing my User page, and this talk page as well; a clearcut violation of Admin privileges. Obviously, if people resort to that kind of outrageous behavior it is pretty much the end of Wikipedia as we know it JdH (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi JdH. Foroa has not touched this page or your user page. And I do not quite understand the claim that your work was destroyed - the category was just renamed, which makes it easier to find. But I agree that these moves can be irritating because of link rot, and I agree that some people here give too much priority to neat and clean naming schemes. This is a wiki - people will do things with your work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Pieter: It was User:High Contrast who vandalized my user page and this talk page, not User:Foroa.
I have copied the deletion log below, to illustrate what has been happening. User:Foroa deleted the Category:Solar chimney on 27 March 2009; that happenend without any prior discussion or feedback at all. When I re-created that page a couple of days ago it was deleted immediately by User:High Contrast, again without any discussion at all.
As I said before, if people think that the Category I created should be renamed the proper procedure is to have a civil discussion about it; it is against wikipedia rules to go ahead and delete it without any prior discussion.
I am prepared to discuss it, but first the situation as is was prior to 27 March 2009 should be restored. By deleting as has happenend the history of that page has been lost, and it no longer shows that it was me who created it in the first place. I feel very strongly that people should credit the effort of people who did all the work in the first place; deleting page with history and all as has happened is against wikipedia rules JdH (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
   * 20:03, 14 September 2010 High Contrast (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Solar chimney" ‎ (Empty category: Category:Solar chimney moved to Category:Solar chimneys)
   * 17:24, 27 March 2009 Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Solar chimney" ‎ (Incorrectly named: content was: '{{en|A solar chimney, or thermal chimney, is an architectural feature to aid natural ventilation and cooling of buildings. Solar-heated air in the chimney rises by convection, drawing in air from outside, u)

You are credited for your work, in the first entry of the history. And you keep talking about wikipedia rules, but this is Commons; maybe you're not familiar with our rules. Did you take the time to read COM:CAT#Category names? After reading it, do you still think a discussion before the move would have made any difference? We usually don't have endless arguments about cases explicitly spelled out in our policies. –Tryphon^☂ 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the situation as it was prior to 27 March 2009, until that has happened there is no point of having a discussion about naming conventions. JdH (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your work was not destroyed. You collected a category of images, and they are still together in one category, which has its place in the category tree. What was done is not much different from changing a word to plural in an article. Contributions to a wiki are subject to changes by others, you must accept that. Now, if there is a problem that category:Solar chimney has become a dead link, one could make that into a {{Category redirect}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Pieter: As I have explained repeatedly I strongly disagree with that change of name. It makes that Category much more difficult to find, since its name now differs from the name used on Wikipedia. If it is Wikipedia policy that people can change your work without any explanation whatsoever, and with complete disregard of the opinion of the original author it is time to call it quits JdH (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Max Planck 1901.GIF

File:Max Planck 1901.GIF has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Template claims that it is free because creator is dead more than 100 years, but no creator is known. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

DaB. (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Max Planck 1910.GIF

File:Max Planck 1910.GIF has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Template claims that it is free because creator is dead more than 100 years, but no creator is known. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

DaB. (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Max Planck 1901.GIF

File:Max Planck 1901.GIF 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!

Storkk (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Royal_Family_of_the_Netherlands

Royal Family of the Netherlands 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!

JopkeB (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)