User talk:GeoWriter

User:GeoWriter Talk Page

Spheroidal weathering not lava bombs. Thanks for your oppiniion. I'm not an specialist on this subject so I accept you are right. The problem is that I don't know how to change the title of the resource. Do you know how to do it? Thanks, and sorry for my mistake. Carlets (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding categories to my images

Hi GeoWriter, thanks for all that work on improving and adding categories to my uploaded images. I tend to only come here to upload images that I'm already planning to use or to search for ones to use, mostly I forget about the older ones that I've uploaded. Mikenorton (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, GeoWriter!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Slump Fold.jpg was uncategorized on 15 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

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, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and personality rights tag

Geowriter, Thanks for adding categories to several of my images, I really appreciate the help. I also appreciate your correct addittion of a personailty rights tag to several photos. I am in the process of uploading new versions with faces that are sufficiently blurred so that the person is unrecognizeable. Although the images were taken in a public place, better safe than sorry! I am going to remove the tags as the new versions are uploaded and the old versions get deleted. Thanks again! Michael C. Rygel 01:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Columnar basalt

Hi, I noticed that you added category "Columnar basalts" to photos of Mount Wellington in Tasmania. The rock here however is not basalt, even though it has columnar jointing. The rock is dolerite, or diabase in American English. perhaps you can make a new category for columnar dolerite. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Mt Wellington columnar rocks are dolerite. I have created a new category "Columnar dolerites" and I've moved the Mt. Wellington photos to that category. I hope I haven't missed any. When I originally copied the Mt Wellington photos to the "Columnar basalts" category, I had also added a description to that category attempting to widen the scope to include dolerite. Now I think a separate category is preferable. I have also created categories for "Columnar andesites" and "Columnar rhyolites"", and I've put all the columnar igneous rocks into a new higher-level category "Columnar igneous rocks". GeoWriter (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Thanks for contributing all these great geologic photos! Best for 2014, Pete Tillman (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoy finding the photos. GeoWriter (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, GeoWriter. You have new messages at Clarkcj12's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clarkcj12 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for categorizing my photos from Mineral Museum in Ustka :)

Yarl ✉ 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to you for uploading the photos. GeoWriter (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/GeoWriter⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear GeoWriter,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Danke

Für die Verbesserung des Artikels http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benitit.JPG Beni

Category-help

Dear GeoWriter, I'm glad when I read you're a geologist. Could you help me to arrange the Category:Tanúhegyek (witness mountains? /hu:Tanúhegy - „The witness mountains his identical altitude marks the former surface near, onto which the basalt lava ran, the tuff was dispersed concerned.” (source: http://national-park.hungaryguide.info/balaton-uplands.html))? Sorry for my "GoogleTranslate-english"... I hope you understand. Fauvirt (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Thanks for uploading these photos to Wikimedia Commons. I'm always glad to see photos of volcanic areas. For Category:Tanúhegyek I added Category:Volcanism of Hungary. For the photos of Csobanc and Halap, I added Category:Pliocene volcanism. Unfortunately, I cannot understand the Google translation of your geological comments. Perhaps, in future, if I find better information about these landforms, then it may be a possibility for me to add more categories. I hope this helps you. GeoWriter (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I found this: Walking in Hungary (GoogleBooks) - p. 169. and this drawing of the formation, it helps (a little)? Fauvirt (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

MUck volcanic dykes

Thanks. It is hard to know where some of this material should go. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Komatiites

Hi GeoWriter, I'm new at this, so apologies if I'm leaving this message in the wrong place... should I be responding by editing your message on my talk page?

Thanks for noticing the komatiites. I agree that additional details would be nice. The samples have been sitting in drawers for years with nothing but sample numbers (sometimes) and mystery attached, so detective work is required. For the moment I have a reasonable idea of who I should be buying the beer for, but not much else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlaPanchuk (talk • contribs) 21:58, 06 February 2016 (UTC)

Lava bombs

Hello. Why have you done this? Those are boulders surrounded by ashes, generally described in the documentation about Ponta de São Lourenço as piroclasts or volcanic bombs. I don't see any reason to believe the formations were caused by spheroidal weathering.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I searched the web, using Google, with search words including "Ponta de São Lourenço", "bomba vulcânica" and "volcanic bomb" and the search gave me no results. I welcome any more detailed information that you may be able to give about this. Can you give any links to the documentation about volcanic bombs in ash at Ponta Sao Lourenço, please? GeoWriter (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

USGS Bulletin

I assume you saw the copyright clarification for the USGS Bulletin massive sulfide image.

Pi3.124 (talk)

Pixabay images uploaded on/after January 9, 2019 on PixaBay are unfree

Dear GeoWriter,

On January 9, 2019, Pixabay made their images uploaded after this date Unfree. Before that it was {{CC0}}. Hence, the new 'updated' license template here: File:Columnar-jointed Lava at Penghu in Taiwan 2.jpg

This image was {{CC0}} when you uploaded it, so I reviewed it. But now Pixabay is no longer free sadly. If the image was Uploaded to PixaBay BEFORE January 9, 2019, then it can be uploaded to Commons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Example: File:Fukugami Station platforms and tracks 2018-01-24.jpg The upload date to Pixabay was February 8, 2018 as its PixaBay source states. It does not matter that the image was uploaded to Commons on January 21, 2019. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. In future, I'll not upload any photos that were uploaded to Pixabay on or after 9 January 2019. GeoWriter (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unidentified rock to outcrops

I thing your activity is not right. Files are in the Unidentified rocks and minerals, because they need identification. While outcrop is just a situation, nor the type of mineral or rock. So better would be just to add that category, not move it there. Juandev (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Which files do you think I moved from the "Category:Unidentified rocks and minerals" instead of copying them? I think that I copied your Kienberg files and your Okres Rokycany file to another category (Category:Outcrops in the Czech Republic) on 1 April 2019,. I think that I did not move these files from "Category:Unidentified rocks and minerals". GeoWriter (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Recompressing Flickr images

Hi there GeoWriter, I noticed that the image file you uploaded at File:Clastic Dyke in Bishop Tuff in California in USA 1.jpg was about half the size of the source image on Flickr, and the images appeared to be visually identical, so I overwrote the file you uploaded here on Commons with the original from Flickr. My intent was to give a future user of the image as much data to work with and as few JPEG compression artifacts as possible.

I am curious what your process was here - did you make edits to the image that I didn't notice? Was there a lot of junk in the EXIF that I missed? (I know there was a thumbnail and some Photoshop cruft, but they weren't large enough to make up the difference)

Thanks for uploading the image, and please don't interpret this as a criticism of your work - I really appreciate your uploads! --Alex Cohn (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the largest version of this photo and enabling this photo to pass the Flickr review. I was surprised that the version of the photo that I uploaded was rejected by the FlickreviewR 2 bot. I think that I have worked out why this occurred. For this image, I accidentally used the Flickr "X-Large (2000 x 3008)" version from Flickr, rather than the "Original (2000 x 3008)" version (I usually use the Flickr "Original" version of images). I was not expecting the review bot to reject a version of the image with the same pixel dimensions as the "Original" version. The only thing I changed in the photo file was to rename it from the meaningless Flickr name (49091485876_ecd7069c9c_3k.jpg), and renaming has never caused any of my uploads to fail review by the review bot. This has taught me that Flickr has compressed the "Original" version to create its "X-Large" version, but both versions have the same number of pixels. So, Flickr compressed the photo. I did not compress or recompress the photo. This has been a useful lesson for me and I'll try to avoid this Flickr compression pitfall in future. GeoWriter (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I'm sorry I didn't see it until now. I was also unaware that Flickr's resizing recompressed images even when the source dimensions are identical to the target dimensions. I know flickreviewr 2 will upload a new version of an image from Flickr automatically if it determines the uploaded image is one of the Flickr-resized versions, but I bet it's not aware it should do so when the image dimensions on Commons are equal to the source image's dimensions, but the image uploaded here doesn't match the source image. I think I'll reach out to the owner of flickreviewr 2 and see if they can add a check for this. Again, I really appreciate your uploads and the detailed answer to my question. Thank you. --Alex Cohn (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

My Gratitude

	My Gratitude
	Dear GeoWriter, thank you for your correction of the photo "harry hamond hess" which I uploaded but had an incorrect copyright tag. Hopluk (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Breccia

How can you tell the difference between breccia and kimberlite? Also, does breccia have any hidden gems? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.201.111.25 (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Kimberlite is a rock defined by the chemical composition of minerals in the rock. Breccia is a rock defined by the angular (non-rounded) shape of the fragments in the rock. Composition and shape are independent variables and it is possible for a rock to have the composition of kimberlite and the fragment shape of breccia. Some kimberlite samples contain angular fragments of other rocks. Therefore, those kimberlite samples are also breccia. Other kimberlite samples do not contain angular fragments of other rocks - these samples are not also breccia. Breccia can sometimes contain gems. GeoWriter (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hello GeoWriter,
This is in order to clear my understanding of removing the images File:Cambrian-Trilobites-2000px.jpg and File:Cambrian-Trilobites-Elrathia-antiuata.jpg as performed by yourself recently. Licence as provided on the source page ( https://earthathome.org/hoe/se/inland-basin/fossils-se-ib/, bottom) is CC-BY-NC-SA. But it seems Wikimedia Commons does not support this. However CC-BY-SA is provided by the upload wizard.

So the problem is the 'NC' - "non commercial use", which is forbidden by the authors of the source page.

I'm afraid, it looks like my understanding of Wikimedia Commons might be wrong and Wikimedia Commons always allows commercial use of the images uploaded there and there was no way to pass tru the bab provided by the authors?

FYI If that was right, it might have important impact on my further work not only for Wikimedia Commons, but for Wikipedia itself. So please tell in case that I am wrong!

There is another implication, too (however this affects only Wikimediua Commons):
I started uploadig images in January this year (when I retired from my profession). There were about 1,000 successsful uploads this year (after some discussions in the beginning, which were solved to my satisfaction, all license of all the images was confirmed, except for one "trial balloon", because the time required for clarification was too great for me there).

In view of this I like to let you know that I am not very happy about these two entries in may talk page (with some understatement).

The only way I see in order to avoid further notes like these might be to stop further uploading to Wikimedia Commons for indefinite period.

Except you might give me reason not to do so, certainly! :-)

Kind regards! --Ernsts (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove the images that you uploaded. I found that you had incorrectly given a CC-BY-SA licence to the images and I notified the administrators of Wikimedia Commons and they deleted the images. (I am not an administrator of Wikimedia Commons). The upload wizard offers licences that are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. The upload wizard does not expect contributors of images to replace an unacceptable licence (for example CC-BY-NC-SA) with an acceptable licence (for example CC-BY-SA), if the contributor already knows that the image has been given a CC-BY-NC-SA licence by the copyright holder. The licences allowed on Wikimedia Commons are listed at Commons:Licensing. Images on Wikimedia Commons must always allow any use including commercial use. If you find images that have licences that are acceptable to Wikimedia Commons, you can upload them. GeoWriter (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation! So it is actually what I feared. As I was not aware of this difference, I had assumed that Wikipedia conversely allows non-commercial use only. In thats case, it would probably have made no difference whether CC-BY-NC-SA or CC-BY-SA was guaranteed in the source. One would not have had to pay any attention to this "small" difference for uploading.

Unfortunately, I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed and misled in my ideas about Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I'll therefore probably not upload foreign images any more. Concerning own images I'll no longer upload these, because I personally can only accept non-commercial use (CC-BY-NC-SA). For foreign images the risk of doing something wrong again is too high for me. The non-licensed uploading of material to the Internet is an absolute no-no for me.

However, I am still considering whether to use images that have already been uploaded in new or newly translated articles could be an option, as well as editing for captions of existing images.

With kind regards --Ernsts (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption

(refers to GeoWriter's question at User talk:Benjamín Núñez González#Fotos: Erupción Cumbre Vieja, la Palma, Canarias, España, noviembre de 2021)

Hi. Those photographs of the Cumbre Vieja volcano are from the night of October 29-30. When I uploaded the photos I made a mistake editing the name and then I didn't know how to change it. The photographs were taken from the Time viewpoint, 8 kilometers away.--Benjamín Núñez González (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Benjamín, thanks for the explanation about the dates of the photos. GeoWriter (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

L'Ovaille de 1584 carte géologique

Hi, I tried my best to give the right "droit d'auteur" : if this is not ok, can you tell me how to proceed. Thanks Ph Delacrétaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lospinguinos (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Lospinguinos, the uploading of photos and other images on Wikimedia Commons is easy if they already have acceptable licences - see Commons:Licensing. It is legally much more difficult and dangerous if the image does not already have an acceptable licence. I do not upload images with unacceptable licences on Wikimedia Commons because I find enough images which already have acceptable licences, therefore I am not an expert on this subject but offer only some general advice here. I suggest you ask SwissTopo, by email, if you can put the image of their map on Wikimedia Commons where it can be used for any purpose, including commercial use. Suggest the license that you want to use, for example CC-BY-SA, with a weblink to Wikimedia Commons licensing page to inform SwissTopo of the rules and implications of the licence. It is VERY important to inform SwissTopo of your intention that the image can be used commercially, because they must not be misled to assume that the image can be only for educational purposes in a Wikipedia article, they must also agree that the image can be used by any person for commercial purposes. For example, someone in China could put the image on 100 million tee-shirts and make a profit of 100 million dollars and the person in China keeps all the money from the sale of the tee-shirts, but SwissTopo receive no money! Are SwissTopo happy that they would receive no money for this? Senior managers at SwissTopo may become very angry if the wrong decision is made by a relatively junior worker. If SwissTopo agree that they will allow commercial use, then SwissTopo must inform Wikimedia Commons in writing using the OTRS system. Members of the OTRS team should be able to give you more help. I will be surprised if SwissTopo agree. —GeoWriter (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

Hey! Is there anything I need to do with the moon picture? MChinaGA (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The image (The geologic map of the Moon at 1-2.5M scale.png) seems acceptable now because you changed the source to a web page where the CC-BY license is shown. I added the "This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. See Category:License review needed for further instructions." message for the administrators and reviewers. (I am not an administrator or reviewer). Eventually, an administrator or a reviewer will check and confirm the CC-BY licence. While we wait for this confirmation, the image can be used normally in Wikipedia articles. You do not need to do anything and the image can be used by anyone. GeoWriter (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! The 1:2,500,000-scale geologic map of the global moon - ScienceDirect Here's the site of the paper, "© 2022 Science China Press. Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science China Press. All rights reserved." is the copyright of the website and some admins were asking about that (they think this is the copyright of the picture). MChinaGA (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Quartzite and Schist in Crozon Brittany France.jpg - Chaos rocheux aux Capucins

Can you please respect the original description (Rocky chaos at Les Capucins), possibly extending the location description (in Roscanvel, Brittany France). But without giving a fake location (it's in the peninsula of Crozon NOT in Crozon). Kerginou is just the hamlet, as said in the original description, it's close to Les Capucins. No problem with the description of the rocks (Quartzite and Schist). OuiQui (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I have changed the English description from "Quartzite and schist near Kerguinou in Crozon, Brittany, France" to "Rocky chaos at Les Capucins. Quartzite and schist at Les Capucins near Kerguinou, Roscanvel on the Crozon peninsula, Brittany, France.". I have also added a French description: "Chaos rocheux aux Capucins, Roscanvel, presqu'île de Crozon, Bretagne, France.". I have also requested that the file should be renamed to "Quartzite and Schist in Roscanvel Brittany France.jpg". GeoWriter (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Collection of fish fossils created by Louis Agassiz (Category)

Hello,
I'm finding myself reinserting the Category:Collection of fish fossils created by Louis Agassiz in files in which you removed it in February 2022. The people working at the Museum that possesses that collection rely on the category to be able to edit it, which is why I am making this move, I don't want that to appear hostile to your work. They also use it to be able to send the category page to paleontologists working from other countries on their collection (ie without being able to look at the fossils "in person"), so I would like to ask you to not remove that category again (and even, if that's easy to do to you, to put it back where you removed it and I have not had the time to put it back yet?).
Thanks for your understanding --Flor WMCH (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)!

Flor WMCH, your analysis of the problem is not correct. I did not remove category "Collection of fish fossils created by Louis Agassiz".

In December 2021, NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh added the category "Collection of fish fossils created by Louis Agassiz" to various photo descriptions. This user put the category in the int:filedesc section of the file description page. See this user's edits, for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFOS031.jpg&diff=614122336&oldid=501864483 . This is not the correct place to add categories.

In February 2022, I added other categories into the file description, but I put these categories in the correct position. For example, I added Category:Fossils of Shropshire. I correctly described this in my edit summaries as, for example, "Copying from Category:Collection of fish fossils created by Louis Agassiz to Category:Fossils of Shropshire". See, for example, my edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFOS031.jpg&diff=632066049&oldid=614122336 . Copying from one category to another category does not remove a category. (Moving or deleting remove a category).

In January 2024, you changed the int:filedesc section of the photos' file descriptions. The text that you removed from this section included category "Collection of fish fossils created by Louis Agassiz" that had been put incorrectly in that section by NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh. See, for example, your edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFOS031.jpg&diff=844473005&oldid=632066049 .

Therefore, it was you (not me) who removed category "Collection of fish fossils created by Louis Agassiz" from the photo file descriptions. (This problem occurs even in files, for example "FOS081.jpg", that I have never edited. See your edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFOS081.jpg&diff=847466626&oldid=614122418 .) You found this category had disappeared from the file description and you added the category again and wrongly assumed that I had removed the category.

In future, please check your edits and the edits of other editors more carefully. It should help you to find the correct reasons for problems. GeoWriter (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for the late reply. I was going through burnout at the beginning of the year and am now back to better cognitive abilities, sorry for the confused question wrongfully attributing you my own actions. I still have to understand why I started removing a category I needed from files that corresponded to it. I guess I will look at all of my 2024 Commons edits and try to make sense of them.

Thanks for your detailed answer, I think it will help me undo the damage. Flor WMCH (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Trip from Búðir to Stykkishólmur , Iceland - August 2010 - Patrick Nouhailler © (5338609154).jpg

File:Trip from Búðir to Stykkishólmur , Iceland - August 2010 - Patrick Nouhailler © (5338609154).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!

Steinninn ♨ 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)