User talk:Cathy Richards

Archives /Archive 1

Hello. [Why?]. Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте! Извините, что пишу по-русски, но я не хочу коверкать английский. Вы добавляете флаг г0ев в категорию ЛГБТ-символики. Обязан вам сообщить о том, что г0и принципиально не причисляют себя к ЛГБТ-движению и держатся особняком о их культуры. Подробности смотрите здесь. --Павло Гетманцев (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(please

refer

to

image

at

right) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.1.212 (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cathy. I have undone changes you made to put LGBT categories into "by gender" categories. LGBT includes some gender aspects, but much of it is sexual orientation, not gender. Gender is whether a person is male, female, intersex, etc. The L, G, and B parts of LGBT are sexual orientation, which is who a person is attracted to, not what gender they are. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Category:Writers from the Netherlands with people in the categories Male writers from the NL and Female writers etc. There are >500 names and >450 photographs in the Category Writers from the Netherlands, and most of them have NOT been categorized as Male or Female. While I think the distinction is useful, I think it mainly useful as an EXTRA category, not as a separate one. Do you have any arguments for your action? Vysotsky (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer on my talkpage. If you talk about Commons:Overcategorization, do you mean to say that you will also empty categories like Category:Writers from France by name and Category:Writers from Russia by name? If not, would you please change Category:Writers from the Netherlands into Category:Writers from the Netherlands by name instead of removing the categories? If you do intend to go on, do you understand that you make it very difficult finding writers from the Netherlands via categories in the situation you are creating? And if you go on, will you consider softening your actions by actively helping to recategorize the remaining 950 categories and files under Writers from the NL into Male / Female? If not, your actions don't exactly improve the categorization. Vysotsky (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fulfilling my request to move the category to Category:Writers from the Netherlands by name. Vysotsky (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thqu هاجر الورد (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed extensively on the archives of en:Talk:Triple Goddess (Neopaganism), Wiccans did not originate the concept of the triple goddess, and they aren't the only ones who revere a triple goddess, and the triple goddess was not part of core (Gardnerian) Wicca. The tendency to assimilate everything Triple Goddess to be part of Wicca can be annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war on this, particularly without explaining your decisions. Listing intersex people under "gender" misgenders many of the subjects. The pages en:Intersex and en:List of intersex people are clear about this. Trankuility (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your name in this crono and I have decided to contact you because the correct name of this page is Aída Yéspica (see her page on En.wiki for example), not Aída Yespica: can you correct the title of that page and delete the uncorrect title after the correction? Many thanks for your attention.--151.67.18.20 19:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your edit with the correct name, but there is a problem: in various wiki there is "In other projects Wikimedia Commons" (see in the left column) with the uncorrect name. I have corrected the name in the English Wikipedia and also in other Wikipedia, but in the left column "In other projects Wikimedia Commons" the name remained uncorrect. Can you help me? I can not understand what should I do. Many thanks for your attention.--151.67.46.229 13:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a idea: maybe the way to solve the above problem was simply this edit in the section "Commons category" at the center of the "Statements" column (note that your edit was only for the section "Other sites" at the end of the page). What do you think about it? I presume that in this way the problem now is resolved. Many thanks for your attention. Sorry for my not good english language.--151.67.46.229 13:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Why do you remove this category ? Léna (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're right, thanks :) Léna (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Question: I thought about adding Category:Men with beards to File:Yalovalı Müslüman Genc.png but then it seemed to me like a picture taken from the internet, am I right? --E4024 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E4024 My photograph, this is a error. A big error because the photo is mine. Subanallah bring it back bring it back bring it back. --II. Niveles (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy.
I seen you've edited a number of my edits here. I've engaged with AnonMoos on his (I presume he's a he) talk page: User talk:AnonMoos#User talk:199.119.232.220.
I solicit your wisdom on the issues I've raised there.

(It's going to be about images of nude women and have references to s-e-x, so you might want to put on your protective gear.    :-)

Thank you.
199.7.156.141 02:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
2. ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello, Cathy, we have not only the brown Tourist signs in Germany. The green and the very old yello signs are official Tourist signs too. Look here: the newer brown sign from 1992 and the older green sign form 1971 in one picture. Thank you. Mediatus (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool....planning to visit Deutschland!!!.... Oh, shucks....couldn't find the flag on my keyboard😡😡😡😬😕 BulbAtop (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I offer my skills as tourist guide. -- User: Perhelion 11:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Category:Nazi symbols" shouldn be reserved for actual official symbols, not things which semi-vaguely resemble them. AnonMoos (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy, it's better to write english or german? - You added a category to this photo. But if you look exactly, you can see, that this is an ironique sign not the true - because blue and white are changed - also the german txt is contrary to the original - So the building should devasted etc, ;-) --K@rl (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "Symbol of marriage"; it's a hat which was worn to Kate & William's wedding by somebody who did not directly participate in the ceremony... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although this edit of yours takes things back to what I had originally, I suspect User:Pierpao knew what he was talking about when he changed it. Are you sure they were wrong? - Jmabel ! talk 23:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all barnstars are star anchors. And not all star anchors are on Barns. Moreover, star anchors were originally made to anchor, hold, walls together and only after used as ornaments.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best choice is to use the {{See also cat}} like I did.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain please your removal of this category from images? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I know you do a lot of categorizing, especially of LGBT-related images. I just updated some images from Portland, Oregon's pride parade, as part of the ongoing Wiki Loves Pride campaign, if you have any interest in helping to categorize these photographs. No worries if you are uninterested. Happy editing! -Another Believer (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does this not belong in Category:Wikimedia barnstars? As the description states, he is holding this because it had just been presented to him as a Wikimedia barnstar. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your theory for removing Category:Allen Ginsberg from Category:LGBT writers from the United States leaving it in Category:Gay writers from the United States, while at the same time removing Category:William S. Burroughs from Category:Gay writers from the United States and leaving it in Category:LGBT writers from the United States? What makes Ginsberg "Gay" and not "LGBT" and at the same time Burroughs "LGBT" and not "Gay"? I'm restoring both until you explain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here? (And in 10 other such categories?) I thought it could be one mistake, but ten…? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You never replied, I just noticed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy,

there is a more specific category: File:Chinglish security sign.jpg

Regards, Transifex (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your categorisation efforts - I really should have done it myself - I apologise. Emphrase (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I must have misread this category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy,

I just saw your post regarding permissions. I could not figure out how to submit under "fair use" or public use (these didn't seem to be options). The image is freely available to anyone on such sources as map apps/software; however, under the circumstances interposed, the image should fall under "fair use" since the image itself is not the subject being presented, but is instead used to show a contrast to an already published image and is used as a counterpoint seeking confirmation.

I don't actually want to begin a discussion, but I wanted to point out that the options for "fair use" are not obvious or easy to find. By the way, I believe I did include the attribution, so I don't understand the problem anyway.

Thanks -jdevola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdevola (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cathy.

Why did you remove red categories (Category:Male musicians from New Zealand, Category:Female musicians from Colombia, Category:Guitarists from Gibraltar, etc...)? Don't you think it would be better to create them than to delete them?

When someone will visit (me, perhaps) these red categories, not yet existing, s.he should find already subcategories waiting in there, but now s.he will be forced to add those you have deleted and it's double working... That's not very cooperative.

I've added these red cats because I'm sorting female and male musicians by instrument and it's a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long work (many instruments). Please, do something (forget guitarists and bassist for exemple: I didn't start pianists, harpists, etc...), thx.

Have a nice weekend. LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 03:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot; hope you guessed it was not against you personnaly.... LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 04:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Do you, sometimes, give some answer, just to let know the other user you agree (or not) what we talk about? I'd like to know what's your line, to be sure if we meet again we will interact positively.

Your mother language is not English, like mine (I'm French and, as your personnal page says you can't speak, read and write it) I guess you can understand what I write as I expect you to understand as I write it in English... But without a response from you I'll never know...

LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 02:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cathy, not exactly a good idea to categorize it "by country". This is a categorization useful for modern countries, not for historical purposes. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy, I made a remark. Could you please give a sign you've taken note? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So why you think that categorizing Ancient Rome "by country" is a good idea, since this is a category for modern (last 3/4 centuries) countries? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What made you think this picture depicted a harem? Best. --E4024 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I has been used to illustrate en-wiki article en:Harem. Cathy Richards (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry, I brought your words here to keep the chat in one place. (I will add a note to my TP that I'm one of the many who prefer to continue a talk where it has begun.) Let me go directly: I have been expelled from where you mention and seeing many things I do I feel like "If I had still been there I wouldn't have time to eat or sleep". If you have a more reliable source than the one you mention, let me replace the cat. With all the due respect to Wikipedians (I'm one of them like yourself), IMHO where you saw it may confuse people looking for knowledge. Please excuse me for being so transparent. I only wanted to tell you why I made an edit. Keep well and thanks for all your contributions. --E4024 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. First of all I would like you to know that I appreciate your contributions, especially on some issues of women that I have been following in Commons. Having said that, of course just like the issue in the above talk, I sometimes differ. This morning I kind of reverted you at Category:Hijabs in Tajikistan, because I pay a lot of attention to correct categorization. Now please look at the first image in that cat: File:Manija Dawlat.png. She (or it, to be more precise) is both in Category:Women wearing hijabs and Category:Hijabs in Tajikistan. Would it not be better if she were simply in one of the cats (Category:Women wearing hijabs in Tajikistan) that I proposed a couple of days ago? I'm referring to the CfD about "Hijabs by country" at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Hijabs by country. I would like to see you participating at that discussion (well, if we can consider "discussion" something that nobody other than the initiator has shown interest at :) and of course freely as you believe. I'm not in search of support for my preferences, I'm in search of the best which I believe is reached at by "discussion". (Not votes, numbers, etc but "opinions".) Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism is categorized as both Protestant and Catholic (NOT Roman Catholic) in liturgy and structure and has both Catholic and Evangelical movements. Classifying it as only "Protestant" is incorrect and misleading.

I am an Anglican, and know what I am talking about. Anglicans either identify themselves as either Catholic, Protestant, both, or also as an independent Western Church.

Please see sources: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/identity/doctrine.aspx http://www.anglicancommunion.org/identity/liturgy.aspx from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/

http://anglicancleric.blogspot.com.tr/2013/01/anglicanism-protestant-or-catholic.html

Artoxx (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Plus-minus sign a bit before effecting any related changes to categorization. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct report for edit warring. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to stepping back. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How Revision of Flag_of_Giustizia_e_Liberta.svg is an “Anti logo”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier to have Category:Asian numismatic charms in the Category:Amulets rather than adding this to several images based on their descriptions into them? All Asian numismatic charms are factually amulets and several are also talismans, the problem is that some sources use the term "charms" and others use "amulets", because many people may not have heard about one term or the other I use both as well as with talismans (in case of the Chinese charms, amulets, and talismans category, partially because sources often use these terms interchangeably or some prefer one as a translation while others the other). Yes, I know that all amulets and talismans are charms but not vice versa but in the case of Asian numismatic charms sometimes the term "amulet" is used (see for example the Etnografiska Museet) while other times the term "charm" is preferred (Charm.ru, Gary Ashkenazy, François Thierry, Etc.) I know that it might make the categorisation look odd, I'm just questioning why move some images from sub-categories into another one when the master category could also carry the others. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note File:91619 SMVK EM objekt 1015101.jpg was in both the Japanese numismatic charms category and its Etnografiska Museet sub-category as the Etnografiska Museet sub-category is for maintenance regarding from which source the image comes from and for when more images of Japanese numismatic charms will be imported, as I don't own any books on Japanese numismatic charms separately from Chinese numismatic charms I don't know what particular type of Japanese numismatic charm that image is. I understand why you did it as an image shouldn't both be in a master- and sub-category, but one was specifically a maintenance category I still need to add more to. I won't reverse your edits, but if you feel that the initial double categorisation wasn't bad you could reverse it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Funeral chapels, because you have edited own or more of the categories discussed there. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Cathy Richards,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

...I will explain my inexplicable erasure of [Paintings of Mother and Child] in [Paintings of breastfeeding]... Being included in this category [Paintings of Roman Charity], I found it conflicting that it was included.

I recognize that I lack enough experience and that I am a foolhardy, so I regret giving you so much work and I sincerely thank you for the company. (As you'll see I use an online translator, I hope you'll excuse me) --Latemplanza (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your patience and attention. I'm afraid I'm a very bad student. :-/ --Latemplanza (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy Richards. Can you explain me this. Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was not official an empress. There wasn't empresses in ancient Rome. Women that we say they are empresses was the mother or the wife of the emperor. But they became the title of AUGUSTA (see also on coins) so Julia Mamea was like an emperess. And she governed during the years that the emperor was a child. Other women of emperor family that had not this power was called only by theyr name, or DIVA. --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, thanks to your edit there’s no connection between Category:∞ (as 1000) and Category:Infinity symbol. (Also because someone else objects to the creation of a Category:∞ (infinity), based on the idea that the most usual type of “thing” is a synonimous of “things” — as if we never disssiminate, say, Category:Automobiles away from Category:Land vehicles…) What’s you suggestion to fix the matter? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! So, unless you intend to provide a good reason for doing this, I'd appreciate it if you stopped reverting my edits, specifically for adding categories, on some LGBT-related files, notably the ones that I uploaded. Thanks! Учхљёная (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Would you take a look at the recategorization (today) of this files: File:Bits und Bäume 2018 16.jpg and File:Fußgängerampel 03.jpg. Was the user right? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) AnonMoos can be trusted in all things related to geometry. Certainly, there is no link depicted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.Suthorn -- the previous discussion is at User talk:IagoQnsi... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I had been notified of a comment on this page by a ping @AnonMoos: and such a comment might have been linked to a #talkpagesection, I might have seen a discussion about generic gender symbols, that has nothing to do with a sign at a toilet door, that clearly is not meant to mean, that only heterosexual people may use this toilet, nor with a sign at trafalgar square where the London Pride Parade starts. But what do I know, I haven't even seen this comment. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fußgängerampel 03.jpg is not on a toilet door. However, you're right that File:Bits und Bäume 2018 16.jpg is not really a heterosexual symbol (instead, it's a non-standard, and some would say inept, attempt at a Unisex symbol), so I'll adjust the category. Note 1: The image was already in a heterosexuality category (Category:Interlinked Venus and Mars symbols (one link)) before yesterday, so my edit of yesterday didn't do anything to change that. Note 2: It is not customary to notify image authors or uploaders when recategorizing their images. Note 3: File:Male and female sign.svg and its variations is more common as an androgyny/unisex sign than what is shown in File:Bits und Bäume 2018 16.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the signs you've categorized as tourist drives are not. Not all brown and white signs in the US are for tourist routes. The Baltimore–Washington Parkway, for instance, is a major freeway connecting the two cities, and it isn't used for tourism purposes. The Yellowstone Trail is an early 20th century auto trail, a predecessor to later US Highway System highways for interstate travel in the US. That highway has been defunct since the 1920s, and it wasn't used for tourism purposes at the time it existed. There were two Virginia memorial signs, one for a memorial highway and another for a memorial bridge, and such designations are not tourism-related at all. Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added PDF icons to Adobe Acrobat icons: Adobe Acrobat is a software and therfore its icon does not represent a filetype.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at the history of Category:Flags indicating languages and I cannot comprehend the logic behind your edits. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So, you neglect to reply to my question here in your talk page, for three months, but you need just a few hours to revert my reversion? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to separate out the photographs from the non-photographs, or otherwi0se the non-photograph images are hard to find... AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cathy Richards! Thank you for reverting my erroneous changes. These categories have somehow slipped along. Best regards from Austria: --GT1976 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

𒁂I'm Commons^{(Tim commons)}𒁂 00:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 01:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain removal of categorization of this cat into Category:Star and crescent incorporating flags. I will keep reverting until explained. --Obsuser (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why do you keep removing the category Category:Transgender symbols from this subcategory? Non-binary is a type of transgender, so the subcategory should be a part of the category. I'd appreciate it if you gave your reasoning for the removal before reverting the edit. Cheers, DiegoAma (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I don't understand why you remove the category for Category:Man and woman. "Man and woman" is at least a kind of human couple, I don't see in this any strange use of language Pippobuono (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I don't understand why you remove the category for Category:Station 5: Simon of Cyrene carries the cross. 'Simon of Cyrene carries the cross' means Simon of Cyrene should be involved. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Die Kategorie Cityscapes icons trifft meiner Meinung nach nicht zu. Solche Schilder stehen nur an Autobahnen, aber nicht als Wegweiser für eine Abfahrt. Auch nicht am Anfang einer Zone, noch gibt es Zonenendschilder. Viele Grüße --Georgfotoart (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 men 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 ∙ +/−

Mjrmtg (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why you removed those categories? --Phyrexian ɸ 18:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am genuinely puzzled as to why you removed the national flag of Israel subcat from Category:Zionist flags. It was not a political statement, but a simple fact, whichever way you look at it. Dahn (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you emptied Category:SVG bisexuality and regional/national hybrid flags, Category:SVG gay pride and regional/national hybrid flags, Category:Bisexuality and regional/national hybrid flags, Category:LGBT and regional/national hybrid flags, and Category:SVG LGBT and regional/national hybrid flags, and put the images inside back in the original parent categories without explanation. If you think these categories should not exist at Commons, there's a better way to make your case than emptying them outright: Commons:Categories for discussion. ミラP 19:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now I just noticed that, other than a handful in 2013 and 2014, you've responded here only once in the past five years... in 2016. it would be best if someone else looking at this could reply here. ミラP 19:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are crosses in Ireland that are not Christian crosses, but not many. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing categories???--Zanekost (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to know what the deal with the 12 reverts of my edits you did was. The idea that logos could be "associated" with something is non-nonsensical there was already more appropriate categories that followed established category conventions. It's completely unnecessary to have logos in two categories for essentially the same thing and just uselessly over complicates things. Especially when of them like "associated with" doesn't make even sense. By doing it that way it's just created a lot of duplication and leading to things not being categorized properly or at all. Using the normal "Logos of whatever by whatever" and "logos of whatever in whatever" is the much easier to understand and sort way of doing it. Plus, like I said it's already established for logos and other things. So, I'd appreciate it if you reverted yourself and put it back to how I had it, or I will. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of reverting some of your additions to this category. Anarchist-Communist_Eureka_Flag.svg was created as an anti-fascist symbol and so is in no way connected to this neo-fascist 'anarchist' movement. Catalan Anarcoindependentisme is also a distinct phenomena to National-Anarchism and doesn't belong in the same category. Xophe84 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy Richards. In a recent edit, you deleted the link between Category:Literary paintings and Category:Mythological paintings by subject. You probably had a reason for this, but you did not state it, which would have been a good idea when you are removing links, except when there has been an obvious error. The link was not an error. Yes, Literary paintings have their own subject in the system of paintings by subject, but they are not one of the 11 genres of paintings. So in order to make them fit into the genre system, it was necessary to make a link to mythological paintings (which is a genre). Because literature is a form of creating mythology. If you do not submit to this kind of reasoning, please state so - otherwise you are expected to revert your edit. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cathy. Could you please stop adding invalid categories to files - anarcho-capitalism isn't considered a form of anarchism, as is the consensus on Wikipedia. Could you please stick to the consensus achieved there. Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sure, there is a catogory for File:1063 International Womens Day - Frauenkampftag 2021 Berlin (cropped).jpg, but I cannot find it. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A Crucifix is a cross with a person fixed on. So Crucifixes must be a subcat of Crosses. Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Crucifixion is the act that creates Crucifixes. Therefore the Crucifixes must be subcats of Crucifixions. Thank you. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy Richartds. Can you explain me please why you continue to remove the cat "Crucifixes" from the cat "Crosses" ? I explain you above why this is an error. Thank you. DenghiùComm (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes and additions in Category:Swastikas.

I put some notes to help myself organize, in case you want to have a look.

Aavindraa (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy, is this image an example of Category:Hortus_conclusus?

Regards,

Aavindraa (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Rare Hindu Barnstar
	For bringing Category:Om (Devanagari) to 108 members and your continued help across the scope of Category:Hinduism. Aavindraa (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if i put this category into Category:Gothic lolita fashion in cosplay? Or does the category not apply to all of the pictures? --Trade (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...of removing Francis of Assisi from the Franciscans, who are founded by him and named after him? Please don't do those random, unexplained edits, they look like vandalism. Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thanks for the categorization, I knew something was wrong there! I don't know who the "Kethüda Sultan" chamber is called in English. Do you have any idea? Nanahuatl (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you added this category to two images, Japanese senior high school student.jpg (in 2016) and ギリギリ短 (15580964194).jpg (in 2019). At the time, the latter file was not described as depicting school students. But both earlier and later revisions of that file description do say that the file depicts school students. I would assume that school students are wearing their actual uniforms and do not belong in this category. If you know something about Japanese culture that I don’t, let me know! Brianjd (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cathy, Can you help to put the image of the handwriting of Isabelle de Charrière at Wikidata to bring to Commons? See: Madame de Charrière à Colombier (Q112336595). It will be appreciated if it is done. Boss-well63 (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathy, since you are re-categorizing a lot of images from Category:Bandstands in Austria to Category:Bandshells in Austria: What are your criteria? According to Merriam-Webster, a bandstand is "a covered platform outdoors, where musicians, especially a brass or military band, can stand and play" ([1]), whereas a band shell is defined as "a bandstand having at the rear a sounding board shaped like a huge concave seashell" ([2]). So band shells are just bandstands with a special shape. However, hardly any of the bandstands you have re-categorized as bandshells have the shape of a seashell. (In German it would be a "Musikpavillon" irrespective of its shape, so I don't think two separate categories make sense at all.) --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witam! Od ponad roku wisi tam ponad 2400 luźnych i nieskategoryzowanych plików w większości dotyczących politruków wszelkiej maści a w szczególności tych od pana w sweterku. Każdemu normalnemu użytkownikowi odechciewa się tu sprzątać (stajnia Augiasza) ... dlatego pytanie czy Znasz tu jakiegoś technicznego usera który ma uprawnienia do masowych przenosin takowych plików (politrucy wszelkiej maści) i który mógłby to przenieść pod "Category:Politics of Poland" lub "Category:Politicians from Poland" ? Dzięki z góry za ewentualną pomoc. pozdr 78.50.68.26 10:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 14 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2022 Picture of the Year contest.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 men 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 ∙ +/−

GioviPen ^{GP msg} 11:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.

Round 2 will end at 28 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]