User talk:Nebula84912

Archives Archive 1

Threads older than 90 day(s) may be archived. This page is archived by MiszaBot

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Nebula84912!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stop removing categories

I am uploading pieces of Yugoslav Partisan art for years. Please, do not remove categories like this, because those are subcategories in the central Yugoslav Partisan art category. --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

P.s. Is there a reason why you did that? I'd like to know the logic behind it. --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Mladifilozof, the category Category:Božidar Jakac is already a subcategory of Category:Yugoslav Partisan art, see COM:CATPRI. Nebula84912 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monuments_and_memorials_to_victims_of_Nazism_by_country

Monuments and memorials to victims of Nazism by country 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!

Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

"Social" status

Regarding this, please keep in mind that the category People by status stands not (only) for social status. LGBT people is categorized under People by sexuality, a subcategory of People by status. --Orijentolog (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Orijentolog, I will copy the description of that category: "Status refers to the relative rank that an individual holds; this includes attendant rights, duties, and lifestyle, in a social hierarchy based upon honor or prestige."

LGBTQ is not a social status; it is a form of identity based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Human sexuality is not a social status; it is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. Social status is a hierarchical ranking within society. Nebula84912 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The description clearly describes social status and links its Wikipedia article. But if the category represents more than social status, under what specific status does the LGBTQ community fall? Nebula84912 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I opened People by sexuality by country to make it more precise. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't it fall under "lifestyle"? If I'm not mistaken the category "People by status" is not just "based upon honor or prestige", because it also includes sub-categories like "daughters" and "sons". Nakonana (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana, being LGBTQ is not a "lifestyle." It is an inherent part of a person's identity. The term "lifestyle" is inaccurate and used in a dismissive or prejudiced way. While LGBTQ people, like all people, have lifestyles (which include their careers, hobbies, tastes, and daily routines), their sexual orientation or gender identity itself is not a lifestyle. It is an innate part of who they are. Nebula84912 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Sexual orientation or gender identity can also "heavily influence one's social status depending on the cultural and familial context". Nakonana (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Nakonana, while being LGBTQ can significantly influence one's social status, it is not a social status in itself. If it were, what kind of status would it be? It is certainly not a 'lifestyle,' a term which inaccurately implies a voluntary choice. I think that to eliminate ambiguity and better define its scope, the Status category requires a revision of its name or description. Nebula84912 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

what kind of status would it be? I think, at least in some societies, it is a legal status of sorts. I think that to eliminate ambiguity and better define its scope, the Status category requires a revision of its name or description. That might be a good idea. Nakonana (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

For example Hijra (South Asia) is a recognized third gender in South Asia and in some countries they "are eligible for priority in education" which is a legal privilege based on status. Another one could be Intersexuality which is neither a sexual orientation nor a gender identity, but a medical condition (which creates a bunch of problems, for example, in countries where it is required to specify a newborn's biological sex in the birth certificate but there are legally only two options for biological sex in birth certificates). Nakonana (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Nakonana, LGBTQ individuals in Iran do not possess any recognized or protected legal status. The discussion is about LGBTQ people in Iran. Nebula84912 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The colour black in European municipal flags

Hi

European municipal flags use heraldic colours. Black is one of these colours, but only if a figure or a ground are coloured in it: if a black outline is drawn around an element, that black outline does not count as one of the heraldic colours used in a flag or a coat of arms. Therefore, please stop categorising flags as containing the colour black when that colour is only used for outlines. The Flag of Hergiswil, for instance, contains only three colours: white, yellow and blue (that's argent, or, and azure in heraldic terminology). The black outlines do not count as a colour. If in doubt, check the corresponding coat of arms on Wikimedia Commons, where file descriptions show the correct heraldic colours, e.g. the coat of arms of Hergiswil. Thank you! Kind regards, ARK (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Another example: among the currently 44 files in c:Category:Black, blue, green, yellow flags of Switzerland, there are only two files that feature black as a heraldic colour: the two instances of the Schwarzhäusern flag. None of the others fit the category. A few spot checks suggest that all of these others were moved into the category by Nebula84912. ARK (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@ARK:that principle applies specifically to heraldry, not to vexillology as a whole. Coats of arms are irrelevant because flags are not coats of arms. The color categories are for all flags in general, not just cantonal flags. This includes flags of organizations, political parties, companies, etc.

The colors of borders are already accounted for in specific categories like Category:Bordered flags and Category:Flags with bordered stars. If there is an established policy against counting borders, outlines, and thin stripes, I would like to be made aware of it.

Categories should be universal to help users find what they are looking for. If a user is searching for a flag with specific colors, that flag should have only those colors when possible. Including a flag in a category that is not supposed to feature that color is not helpful. There are Swiss flags that do not contain the color black, and these are the flags one would expect to find in a category that does not have "black" in its name. Nebula84912 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912: It has been my assumption for quite a while that Wikimedia Commons works under the consensus that the correct vexillological standard of description for heraldic designs is in fact the heraldic standard as expressed in any given design's official blazon, which, as a matter of long-settled practice, doesn't specify outlines, and therefore doesn't specify the colour black unless an element is actually tinctured black. I also notice that you've moved quite a number of flag files from colour categories without the colour black to colour categories with the colour black. So it looks a lot like you're tacitly challenging an existing consensus. If that is the case, the onus should be on you to demonstrate why the existing consensus it incorrect. Instead of invoking the presumed universality of your opinion, please cite the vexillological standard under which the outlines in heraldic designs should be described as a design element whose colour must be mentioned in the description.

@Kontributor 2K: Any thoughts? ARK (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The use of borders simply serves to highlight the elements that make up an illustration, or the images themselves, and to compensate for insufficient contrast, without which the images would be much less legible.

This is by no means an element inherent to heraldry or vexillology, but rather a visual constraint; also the colour of the borders may vary: for example, a black element should logically have a grey border, not a black one; should we then consider that the image is described as containing these two colours?

No, since the border is an optional element that enhances contrast and is not inherent to heraldry or vexillology. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@ARK: There is no correct vexillological standard. Vexillological associations make recommendations, and there are thousands of flags that don't follow their recommendations. The flags that comply with heraldic design are this way because they are inspired by heraldry, but many don't. There are also no correct heraldic standards for colors. There are so many exceptions to the rule of tincture that is basically meaningless. But that is irrelevant because coats of arms are not flags. That's why we don't categorize flags with the color names used in heraldry. For example, the national flag of the US is categorized with red and white stripes, not "argent" and "gules".

Which are the official blazon of this and this flags?

"I also notice that you've moved quite a number of flag files from colour categories without the colour black to colour categories with the colour black." Like which?

"The use of borders simply serves to highlight the elements that make up an illustration" I respectfully disagree. How would I find flags that don't have black color if the category has flags that have black color? Having the category with additional colors only makes sense if the subcategories for flags with black don't yet exist. But that categories already exist so there is no reason to have them there.

Nebula84912 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, this flag, for an example, should be classified as "red-white-black" and, at a glance, "Black on flags with red fields" and "white on black"?

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that there is no category for "Black on flags with red fields" or "White on black" yet. But if you want to categorize it with "Flags with black bordered stars," then you should classify it as a "Black, red, white" flag. Personally, I would delete it, as it is too low quality and there are better quality images of that flag. Nebula84912 (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the files quality, which is not the subject at hand, does your answer indeed mean "Yes, according to me, this flag is a "Black, red, white" flag?

I agree with ARK on the consensus, and I would add that it would make sense for the example file and its vector version, still for an example, not to be in different colour categories, since they both represent a white star on red background, the outline of the star being a choice independent of the composition of the flag, which may vary from one uploader to another. Regards, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: my answer was not "yes". My answer was if you are going to categorized as a black bordered star then you should also categorized as black, red, and white. I didn't categorized as such so it is up to you. Nebula84912 (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not "up to me ", nor to anyone: This is in no way a "black bordered star", but a white star on a red background, whether an outline is present or not;

This example was intended solely to corroborate what was so aptly said at the beginning of this discussion (“Black is one of these colours, but only if a figure or a ground are coloured in it: if a black outline is drawn around an element, that black outline does not count as one of the heraldic colours used in a flag or a coat of arms”). R, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: If the color black is present in the image, then it should be categorized as such. There are many flag variants, and I'm unsure if this specific one is an artistic choice or an official design with black-bordered stars.

The purpose of categories is to help users find what they are looking for. Therefore, a category should contain what its name implies. If you want to categorize that image as a flag with black-bordered stars and the colors black, red, and white, I won't stop you. I didn't categorize it as black so I don't know what that has to do with my edits.

Please explain to me why users should be forced to navigate through images of flags that clearly contain black when they are specifically searching for flags that do not, like these ones: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Unless an alternative is given that allows us to search for flags without any black, without having to navigate through flags with the color black present, then I firmly oppose including flags with black outlines in categories that don't have "black" in the name. Because the purpose of categories in Commons is to help the user to find media. Heraldic and vexillological rules are completely irrelevant. Nebula84912 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

“If you want to categorize that image as a flag with black-bordered stars and the colors black, red, and white, I won't stop you”: Regardless of the fact that if I acted in this way I would have, above all, to be absolutely stopped, we're not talking here about my edits, but yours;

I repeat what was told above by ARK: “Wikimedia Commons works under the consensus that the correct vexillological standard of description for heraldic designs is in fact the heraldic standard as expressed in any given design's official blazon, which, as a matter of long-settled practice, doesn't specify outlines, and therefore doesn't specify the colour black unless an element is actually tinctured black.”

Plus, it appears that “you've moved quite a number of flag files from colour categories without the colour black to colour categories with the colour black. So it looks a lot like you're tacitly challenging an existing consensus”.

This behavior is getting near disruptive, and also time-consuming for others, since the mentioned file-moves will have to be reversed at some point.

An aside category like "Flags with black borders/outlines" for flags with outilnes is sufficient, allowing to filter search results, without having to modify the colour categories corresponding to the colors defined in the composition of a flag just because of an outline, once again depending on an uploader's choice, and, "incidentally", as demonstrated above, 2 representations of a same flag must not to be in different colour categories just because one has outlines and the other doesn't.

If you “firmly oppose” this principle, it will need to be discussed further on an appropriate discussion page;

@ARK: Any thoughts? --Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media. In practice, it implies that you'll associate a single subject with a given category. The category name should be enough to guess the subject, but some extra text can be useful to precisely define it. The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. To allow this, each file must be put into a category directly. Each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure." and "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories). A category can have more parent categories." Commons:Categories

That's the consensus. And no policy or consensus has been given in this conversation that supports the claim that "Wikimedia Commons works under the consensus that the correct vexillological standard of description for heraldic designs is in fact the heraldic standard as expressed in any given design's official blazon, which, as a matter of long-settled practice, doesn't specify outlines, and therefore doesn't specify the colour black unless an element is actually tinctured black."

"Plus, it appears that “you've moved quite a number of flag files from colour categories without the colour black to colour categories with the colour black. So it looks a lot like you're tacitly challenging an existing consensus”." Again, like which?

"This behavior is getting near disruptive" you are accusing me of things that I didn't do. That's is uncivil. Commons:Civility Nebula84912 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"we're not talking here about my edits, but yours" ??? Where did I talk about your edits? I said I wouldn't oppose it if you wanted to categorize the file that way. I did not categorize it that way myself. You are the one who brought it up, not me. You are the one who asked for my opinion on that file, and I gave it, even though it was irrelevant to my own edits because I didn't categorize it that way. Stop misrepresentimg me. Nebula84912 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, what was misrepresented was what i said.

The question I wanted to raise with the white star on red field example file, is the principle of categorization, principle where the outline is taken into account to define the colour categories a file will be classified into, and not whether or not you would personnaly categorize this specific file based on the fact that it includes outlnes.

So another example - where the point to consider is again the principle of categorization and not the file itself, nor the person performing the categorization - is this file having been categorized in Black, red, white flags of Germany, on the basis that the outline has to be taken into account, hence a category containing the word “black”. Same principle with some other example files, File:Flagge FDGB.svg, File:Thal SG flago.png or File:Honau LU.png.

So, these examples therefore perfectly answer the question posed with the white star on red field example, since the categorization principle is indeed applied on them: If this principle is applied, Yes this file is to be categorized in a "colors black, red, and white" category, incidentally suggesting, like with this file, "white on black", and "black on red", while the flag definition is actually "a white element on a red background".

This being, you say that you didn't categorized the file this way, before doing it with this file, and the other examples, among others, so is there any difference? Was the example question #1 really "irrelevant to your own edits"?

The issue now is that if some files are categorized upon this principle and others aren't, we are heading towards an overall inconsistency; that's what is meant by "near disruptive", the overall consistency being the point to consider, which I specify in case it's not implicit. - and I'm sorry that you perceived it as "full uncivility".

So, on the principle you apply when categorizing files, this flag or that one should be in a colour category containing the word "black", that one in one containing the word "brown", just because of the outlines included, right?

Anyhow, I'll open the elsewhere-discussion for you, since you don't seem to consider doing it; do you?

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: This, this, and this clearly have black present. On this one, I'm more neutral, but you said: "I would add that it would make sense for the example file and its vector version, still for an example, not to be in different colour categories, since they both represent a white star on red background, the outline of the star being a choice independent of the composition of the flag, which may vary from one uploader to another." The vector version of that flag has black. Therefore, under your logic, I have categorized it correctly. So what exactly is your concern?

"white star on red field" That category doesn't exist yet.

"'white on black', and 'black on red', while the flag definition is actually 'a white element on a red background'." I don't know what you are talking about. "White on black", as far as I know, means black color on a white background color. I don't know where you are getting the definition that it has to be an "element." An element is defined if the category defines it, such as in "Category:Flags with white stars." If that's not the definition used in Commons, please show me where your definition is written on Commons, as I have never seen it. What I see is that in the category Category:White on black there are files with white-bordered black silhouettes of a person. Outlines are characteristics that can be categorized, like in "Category:Bordered flags" or "Category:Flags with bordered stars". They are sometimes present in a flag and sometimes not. Therefore, when some designers choose to use outlines and others do not (like the several examples I gave), that means the choice is meaningful. It is significant to some designers; otherwise, they wouldn't use them. Again, please explain to me why users should be forced to navigate through images of flags that clearly contain black when they are specifically searching for flags that do not, like these ones: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

"so is there any difference?" The difference is that I'm neutral on that file and prefer to let other editors decide if they want to categorize it as having black or not.

"We are heading towards an overall inconsistency" If you can clearly see that a flag has black, then there is no inconsistency. If you are in doubt (for instance, if there is not enough black or it is too mixed with other colors to be considered black) then you can discuss it on the specific file's talk page to determine whether it should have the category or not.

"So, on the principle you apply when categorizing files, this flag or that one should be in a colour category containing the word "black", that one in one containing the word "brown", just because of the outlines included, right?" Yes, this flag clearly has black, and in addition to categorizing it as black, one can add it to Category:Flags with black crosses. This other one doesn't have brown, its outlines are dark yellow.

Again, it is not my principle, it is what Commons:Categories says: "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories). A category can have more parent categories." The most specific category that fits a file that has the color black, is the category that is named "black". If you want to make it more specific, you can create subcategories like "Flags of Switzerland with black outlines" or "Black outlines in flags of Switzerland." But for now, these are the most specific categories.

-- Nebula84912 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If you categorize this flag as "having black in it" and in the same time you are "more neutral" with the example #1 "and prefer to let other editors decide if they want to categorize it as having black or not", then the question of overall consistency arises since you admit that, in your opinion, two files with the same characteristics - here the black outline - may not be classified in the same colour category - here 'Category:Black, red, white flags […]'.

About this flag, the question was solely in regard to the outlines, not the cross, so you didn't really answer, although it seems that "clearly has black" means to you 'at least for the outlines', and as for this other one I wouldn't say that "its outlines are dark yellow" since #856000 or #866c00 can hardly be considered anything other than "brown", so per this fact and your logic, this other file should be categorized as "brown, red, yellow flag", right? - note: there is no point here in reducing the subject to a specific detail, since an example is, implicitly, meant to be representative.

Apart from that, if "it is not your principle, it is what Commons:Categories says", then this file with a yellow border and black outlines should be categorized in a colour category equivalent to "black, green and yellow CoAs", shouldn't it?

Out of politeness, I ping Erlenmeyer so that he can begin to learn about the (still unilateral) change currently underway, and intervene here if he'd wishe to do so.

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Kontributor 2K: I'm still waiting for an explanation on why users should be forced to navigate through images of flags that clearly contain black when they are specifically searching for flags that do not.

As for "admit that," I did not admit anything. If I do not want to edit a file, I will not. I am not an employee, and I am not paid to edit files. I edit what I want, and I am only responsible for the edits that I make. I am not forced to do anything here. I believe I have made my point quite clear. The official policy on categories is clear, and that is the consensus. You search for "inconsistencies" is not assuming good faith "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." COM:AGF

You first said that this flag shouldn't be categorized as black because its vector version doesn't have black. But know you bring a flag that its vector do have black outline to try to demonstrate that I categorizing thing in inconsistent manner. Why are you arguing about a file that under your rationale has black because its vector version does has black? And why I'm acting "inconsistently" by letting others to decide on things that I don't feel that I want to get involve in it? Why I should be forced to get involved in every decision that is made in Commons?

This flag is not brown. The borders are dark yellow, specifically olive or a variant of gold. If the borders were brown, then yes, it should be categorized as such.

This file is not a flag. I was already very clear that this is about flags, not coats of arms. I did not edit that file, and I do not plan to do it. However, Commons:Categories policy applies to all categorization on Commons, so what is said there applies to every single file and category in the project.

I believe I have provided a complete explanation. Unless your response directly addresses the specific questions I have raised about the categorization rationale for the flags we initially discussed, I do not see a basis for productive further discussion. I politely ask that you refrain from further posts on my talk page on this matter. Nebula84912 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912: In Europe, the overwhelming majority of insignia used by territorial public bodies such as municipalities, French départements, German länder, Swiss cantons, etc. are heraldic in nature. Moreover, their formalisation in the modern period – since the Napoleonic wars, say – has largely taken the form of armorials in which they these insignia are described as coats of arms, using heraldic standards of description. In that sense, the flags of European territorial public bodies are largely derivative from their corresponding coats of arms. That is the culture. That is why Wikimedia Commons works under the implicit consensus that black outlines are not counted as a flag colour. That consensus never had to be made explicit before you came along with your culturally illiterate assertion that all flags, irrespective of what kind of flags they are, must have their palettes described as instances of graphic design.

For example, when the Commons categories Blue, green, yellow flags of Switzerland and Black, blue, green, yellow flags of Switzerland were initially created, the latter category contained only two files. The latter category now contains 44 files only because you chose to move 42 files from the former to the latter. You did so in in disregard of the long-established, implicit, culturally aware consensus that the heraldic insignia of territorial public bodies should be consistently described in accordance with heraldic custom. If you would like to challenge this implicit consensus, I would invite you to seek an explicit consensus among Commons users to the effect that the palettes of all flags must be described as instances graphic design. Until you've managed to establish such a consensus, I would request that you stop doing what you've been doing. Thanks! Regards, ARK (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

ARK: this is an international website and categories are for search media. The explicit consensus is Commons:Categories. There is no such thing as "implicit consensus" on categorization. We follow that established consensus on categorization. And as no evidence of the contrary has been cited here, this conversation is over. Nebula84912 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912: It's quite difficult to understand why, on one hand you say, above, “this conversation is over,” and on the other one, 2 minutes later you intervene with the comment “Discuss it on the talk page,” which in itself is quite contradictory, even more if when you consider that you opened the discussion yourself, or rather moved the current one, as new start, to a talk-page even less relevant than yours; a bit like (somehow) if you asked me whether I intended to categorize this file in the “brown, red, yellow flags” category just because of the outline, and instead of answering 'yes' or 'no', I replied that “the color #856000 is dark yellow“ (did I?), which is the same approach of reducing a subject to a detail, or a specific file, while the question covers a much broader field than the misinterpretation of a color, a much broader field than a specific file, or even dozens of them, and it is certainly not on the talk-page of a file, nor on yours, that the consequences of your own interpretation —or non-interpretation, if you prefer— of categorization rules have to be discussed. So not only is this conversation not over, but more importantly, it hasn't even begun.

As your were explained above, this edit is non-consensual, so it was reverted.

One would be expected here not to try to impose a processus, and to take the trouble to consider certains arguments, and also take the trouble, given the implications, that their own be exposed to all contributors concerned, and that the principles, where applicable, are respected and, above all, applied, always with a view to maintaining overall consistency.

Anyhow, I'll open the discussion-which-has-to-be-opened-elsewhere for you, since you don't seem to consider doing it, do you?

-Kontributor 2K (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Kontributor 2K: This is my talk page. The conversation in here is over. If you want to take the conversation to other place be my guest. You still are not addressing my concerns when I addressees yours. So in this place, here is over. I already answer you and I don't have anything more to add. Nebula84912 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K and @ARK, I opened a discussion in the Village pump. Please discuss the issue there. Nebula84912 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)