Last modified on 26 December 2007, at 10:17

User talk:Fabelfroh/2007

Return to "Fabelfroh/2007" page.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Parnassius apollo.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parnassius apollo.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Polyommatus damon.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Polyommatus damon.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Aporia crataegi.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Aporia crataegi.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Sympetrum sanguineum.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sympetrum sanguineum.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Vanessa atalanta.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vanessa atalanta.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Polyommatus icarus oberseite.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Polyommatus icarus oberseite.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Carex demissa.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Carex demissa.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Carex demissa detail.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Carex demissa detail.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Gentiana pneumonanthe korseby.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gentiana pneumonanthe korseby.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Agrostis gigantea ligula.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Agrostis gigantea ligula.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Rhinanthus minor detail.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rhinanthus minor detail.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Inula britannica.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Inula britannica.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Vanessa cardui.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vanessa cardui.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Polyommatus icarus 2.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Polyommatus icarus 2.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Inula britannica detail.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Inula britannica detail.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Primula veris.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Primula veris.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Juncus compressus.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Juncus compressus.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Tettigonia viridissima.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tettigonia viridissima.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Athalia lugens.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Athalia lugens.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Scheuchzeria palustris korseby.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Scheuchzeria palustris korseby.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Aglais urticae.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Aglais urticae.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Bidens cernua.jpeg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bidens cernua.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

FP PromotionEdit

Agrius convolvuli korseby.jpeg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Agrius convolvuli korseby.jpeg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Agrius convolvuli korseby.jpeg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Image:Drosera_capensis_detail.jpegEdit

Hallo! Darf ich das wunderschöne Bild: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Drosera_capensis_detail.jpeg für meinen Webblogg benutzen? Bitte um einen antwort an alleswasrockt@gmx.de. Vielen Dank füe Deinen Antwort! Stefan

Image:Amblystegium serpens detail.jpegEdit

Hi! You requested the deletion of this picture, given reason is “wrong determined moss, please delete”. Do you wish this file to be renamed or do you really want it deleted? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Please delete it.
By the way... You can delete Image:sharpiella_seligeri.jpeg, Image:sharpiella_seligeri_blaetter.jpeg, Image:sharpiella_seligeri_sporogon.jpeg, Image:sharpiella_seligeri_lamina.jpeg as well.
All these photos are showing even more undeterminable mosses. Nobody can make use of those photos. Thanks. Fabelfroh 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FotosEdit

Hallo Fabelfroh, bei Image:Grimmia glasspitze.jpeg und Image:Grimmia lamina.jpeg fehlen noch Lizenzinfos. Beste Grüße --Überraschungsbilder 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wenn nicht bald geklärt ist, welches Grimmia das genau ist, dann werden die Bilder sowieso wieder gelöscht. Fabelfroh 07:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pleurozium schreberiEdit

hi Fabelfroh,

no, i'm not at all sure what species it is. in fact, i'm currently uploading thousands of pictures that were made by James Lindsey, and have no idea whatsoever about mosses. i found the determination of species to be rather spot-on where i could verify it, so i decided to upload the files (with his permission). i forwarded your comment to James, maybe he has an idea. thanks for the hint! --Sarefo 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

hi again, James Lindsey would like to contact you so that he can put your name to the 'help for corrections' section on his page: jlindsey, at gen dot unimaas dot nl. btw, nice work on mosses :)

here's the relevant part of his mail:

As you know, I am not an expert on any of these species. For mosses, I

have guides in three languages and consider Smith (2004, 2nd edn) to be definitive (complete references on my site), so follow it for taxonomy. Unfortunately, neither the Flora europaea site (which I follow for plant scientific names, other than mosses) nor the International Plant Names site cover mosses. In many areas, there are big divergences in names, and even in what constitutes a species, either between America and Europe or between English speaking countries and continental Europe. For the two above mentioned names, I have used Smith (2004), but not everyone apparently agrees.

According to my four guides, H. cupressiforme and P. schreberi look

very similar in situ. The latter is distinguished mainly by red stems that can only be seen by pulling the plant apart. Because I always take pictures in natural situations, the stem are hidden and cannot be seen. Because my pictures apparently are debatable, I have replaced them with others (with no guarantee that the new ones are better!!).

--Sarefo 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can send him this text: As far as I know you almost always can see the red stem through the leaves on P. schreberi. That's the reason why this moss is known as "red stem moss" (translated) in german. Be sure to check out whether the leaves are curved sidewards (H. cupressiforme) or not (p. schreberi). To the names. They are not wrong. They're just aliases. You do not need to rename those photos. I just wanted to remind you placing them on the right page and category so that people can find them. Taxonomy is a difficult thing. If you have other determination problems, you can also ask User:Franz_Xaver. Greetings. Fabelfroh 08:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

SchachtelhalmEdit

Servus! Bei Image:Equisetum telmateia.jpeg und Image:Equisetum telmateia detail.jpeg bin ich mir ganz sicher, dass das nicht Equisetum telmateia ist. Die Zähne an den Stängelscheiden sind einfach zu kurz. Ganz sicher bin ich mir aber nicht, was es wirklich ist, höchstwahrscheinlich einfach nur Equisetum arvense. Der Boden war dort nicht extrem nass? Oder? Grüße --Franz Xaver 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Das war letztes Jahr auf Rügen. Der wuchs an einer nassen Stelle im Wald nicht unweit eines Niedermoores (irgendwo in der Granitz nicht unweit des Schwarzen Sees). Sicherlich nicht die besten Photos - Ziemlich verwackelt. Sollte aber trotzdem stimmen - den hab ich nicht alleine bestimmt. Vielleicht einfach nur ein schlechtes Exemplar erwischt. Fabelfroh 05:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Gut, da hat sich dann eben auch der Andere geirrt. Diese Bild vom folgenden Tag, das ist aber wirklich Equisetum telmateia. Bei den anderen beiden bin ich mir aber jetzt sicher, dass das Equisetum arvense ist. Beim Detailfoto ann man ja auch sehen, dass das unterste Glied der Äste länger ist als die zugeordnete Stängelscheide. Der Standort passt auch für E. arvense. Grüße --Franz Xaver 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mentha aquatica.jpegEdit

Hallo Kristian, bist Du ganz sicher, dass dieses Bild Mentha aquatica zeigt? Die starke Behaarung ist sehr untypisch für diese Art und spricht eher für Mentha suaveolens. Gruß, Ies 15:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Das ist schon gute 2 Jahre her, da erinnere ich mich nicht mehr an die genauen Umstände. Blüten hatte die damals wohl aber noch nicht. M. suaveolens soll in Mecklenburg gar nicht vorkommen, also scheidet die wohl schonmal aus. Mangels Alternativen würde ich erstmal weiterhin auf M. aquatica plädieren. Es könnte sich auch um eine Hybride handeln. Die wuchs jedenfalls sehr feucht an einem See. Fabelfroh 16:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tree of categoriesEdit

Hi, Fabelfroh: in aquatic plants images, I add the species category ("Egeria densa", for example) and remove the "Freshwater plants" category. Why? Because the species category (Egeria densa, for example) is categorized into freshwater plants, and the wikipedia rules are put in the more specific category, only one time, not twice categories. The image is into "Egeria densa", under "Freshwater plants". If you put the image in Freshwater plants, in 2008 the list will be impossible to see. Regards, --Pristigaster 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't noticed that Egeria dense already is in that category. I'll undo the changes. Fabelfroh 06:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality ImagesEdit

Hi Fabelfroh,

Congratulations on the high quality of your uploaded images, many of them would satisfy the requirements for Quality Image Candidates. But I see that your upload template automatically adds category:Quality Images to your images. This isn't quite the normal way this category is used :-) ! The idea is that images are submitted to Quality Image Candidates and reviewed by other wikimedian's, those that are accessed as Quality Images then have the template {{QualityImage}} added, which displays a banner on the images page and adds it to the category. Probably not a good idea to submitt all your images at once though as the reviewers will be over-whelmed (perhaps 5 per day). Given your obvious skills you may like to help review other's images too (anyone can participate). --Tony Wills 05:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. First thing: Not every photo gets all the categories which the template has. It only contains possible frequently used categories. The template QualityImage is been used rarely by me. Second thing: I always thought that there were 2 distinct image quality guidelines. The first one is the one you described plus the picture gets a special "quality"-tag only an administrator can add, the second one is where the user can supply the images for their own. Those images are collected in one big category. The second way is the way I used. And I'm pretty sure that a lot of users here are using this way too. At least I've seen that quite often.
In the german wikipedia all of my microscopic photos won't get through the quality process because those people are pixel counters and won't accept pictures with less than 1600x1200. But what they don't understand is that even good cameras for microscopes don't have that high resolutions. I'm not sure how this is done in the commons process (I'll read the guidelines later on) but if that would be the same all of my microscopic snapshots will loose there quality-tag. And I'm pretty sure that some of my snapshots are very unique on the internet. Fabelfroh 07:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation, but no, on commons the category is very specifically only used in the way I stated. I'm currently doing an audit of the QI pages to check everything matches up, of the 1176 QImages there are about 94 in the category that have not gone through the QIC process, about 70 of them are yours :-). As for the resolution of your images, yes there are some reviewers who think 2MP is some sort of magic minimum resolution, but I strongly discourage that attitude :-), microscope images would certainly have strong mitigating circumstances for lower resolutions. There might be a problem with depth of field though. I hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A hint when submitting images to QIC: most of your images appear to be highly compressed, I would normally expect a 1200x1600 image to be about 700k or bigger in size, whereas most of yours are about 100k. Eagle eyed reviewers will complain about jpeg compression artefacts. Perhaps a higher 'quality' setting on the camera is needed. :-) --Tony Wills 10:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well. Thanks for the quick response. I'll have a look into the pictures I have wrongly added to the category and I'll try to make a list and put them (after a review by myself) one after one (with some delay so that the people have enough time to discuss them) into "Quality Images Cadidates" for discussion. Fabelfroh 11:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tagsEdit

Hi Fabelfroh. You've loaded a lot of images without adding copyright tags... they're past the 7 day limit now, so will be deleted at any time now. Please take a few minutes to tag them, as they're nice images and it would be a shame to delete them. --SB_Johnny | PA! 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I already have uploaded them again but under a correct name but have forgotten to put the badname-tag under the photos without license. They can be safely deleted. Fabelfroh 06:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FPEdit

FP is Featured Pictures. A bit like COM:QI, but some important differences. FP has more status, and is harder. Basically, must be high quality, plus have a 'wow factor' (usually being very beautiful). And there shouldn't be two FP that are 'too similar', though that is subjective. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to get images promoted to FP that are technically faulty if they have a strong 'wow' factor - eg something dramatic and unreproducible. Some people are starting to insist on high resolution although that was not originally a criteria. --Tony Wills 09:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Fabelfroh 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's possible get something with borderline technical faults through, but (in my observations) only if it is an attractive photo, however much wow and however important and unique the subject matter. Otherwise you'll get votes for it, but you'll votes against it as well, and you won't get a 2/3rds majority. I realise that I'm at one end of the spectrum on the importance of subject vs attractiveness of image when it comes to deciding what's valuable. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not easy to decide what's important for a good image. To a lot of people technical issues like pixel size, sharpness, depth of field are most important. For some other composition, uniqueness and subject have more relevance. However it'll take some time for me to understand to what kind of pictures people will vote more positive. Maybe on the other hand only (hobby)-biologists can understand or read the meaning of microscopic photos. I think that some people who don't know about the difficulties of a microscope will vote against such photos. Fabelfroh 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
For QI, uniqueness doesn't matter at all, and subject doesn't matter much. For FP it's the other way around. Composition is always important, and the other things can be overlooked but are usually important for both FP and QI. I guess the question that needs to be addressed is "is the equipment you are using out of date?" If it is, you have a problem. If it is "not top of the line, but still perfectly good" then you should have a strong case. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

FPXEdit

Hi, May I remind you that the {{FPX}} template may only be removed by somebody with a supporting vote who is not the nominator. Thanks. Lycaon 09:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But at least you could have left my comment. Fabelfroh 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, sorry, I should have. Lycaon 10:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal concerning User PH-n templatesEdit

Hi, there is a proposal and vote concerning the {{User PH-0}},...,{{User PH-3}} templates, that you may be interested in. --Tony Wills 10:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Fabelfroh 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright informationEdit

Please do not remove my copyright information under the gallery-images. As in GFDL section 4 specified every derived picture (a resized image falls is such derived work) must have appropriate copyright-information. Because the thumbnails do not have any EXIF-tags the GFDL license requires copyright information right under the image.

I don't believe I removed any Copyright information if I did it was a slip of the mouse in editing. I only removed the dead Category Links and the double images. All your Categories you made from the botanical names were a dead link, they went no where and no one would find them. Only a photo gallery is necessary or a Category by itself linked to the next highest taxanomic one not one in each. Apologies for the missing Copyright info I didnt mean to remove that. WayneRay 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay
Oh That copyright information!!! That is just vanity information what you did, sorry. I removed the photographers name because it is in the photo image summary on the Image, see below (Information Description) What you said is right though, the Copyright information GFDL goes below the photo ON THE DESCRIPTION PAGE not on the Gallery page. You have it below the photo on this one

Information |Description = |Source = photographed by Kristian Peters |Date = created 22.07.2007, Savoier Alpen |Author = Kristian Peters -- Fabelfroh 08:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |Permission = |other_versions =

GFDL-self THIS IS THE BELOW PHOTO COPYRIGHT PLACEMENT. I removed the wiki codes so it wont show up large on the page Just leave it here not on the Gallery page please WayneRay 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Administrator reply to have no "photo by (name)" on Gallery Thumbnails. Or discuss on Village Pump. Hope you don't mind me seeking the clarification. WayneRay 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Hi Wayne,

It has always been Wikimedia Commons practice that having the image link to the image page which contains all the licensing and author information is sufficient recognition of the licenses we accept. If anyone wants to insist otherwise indeed it requires a big public discussion, at the Village Pump and/or on the mailing list. According to current practice images don't require captions attribution. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Myriophyllum spicatum.jpegEdit

Should Image:Myriophyllum spicatum.jpeg still be renamed? Is so, please add {{badname}} to it. Add the correct name immediately after a "|" following "badname", and I'll take care of it. I noticed it while I was looking for earlier discussions of the matter you raised with WayneRay. I hope his explanation is helpful to you. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is correctly determined. There are some vegetative keys available that allow a determination with only some small leaves of the plant. If you're interested, I can make a citation. Fabelfroh 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you were able to confirm the indentification. You might add a citation to the article. It is sadly lacking in references.[1] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the note on the image page just now. I apologize for not seeing it before. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bild des Tages (26 OKTOBER 2007)Edit

Servus,
bitte, könntest du mir sagen welcher Art ist dieses Moos? Klee Wagenmoos 01.JPG
Danke.
--B.navez 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tja. Ich würde da auf ein Thuidium tippen. Im Wald ist Thuidium tamariscinum am häufigsten, aber um andere Arten auszuschließen, muss man sich das Blatt unter'm Mikroskop anschauen und die Spitzen der Endzelle zählen. Das ähnliche und häufigere Hylocomium splendens hat normalerweise einen durchscheinenden, rötlichen Stängel. Fabelfroh 06:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thuidium philibertii and the other Thuidium species, shouldn't they be connected to the higher order category as we discussed on my page and the Category Thuidium is fo plant cells in Category Plant cells. It was a dead link category and I have temporarily attached it to Thuidiaceae and not plant cells as there are the two galleries there now with both plants and cells. PS Thought you were going to find out about the tag lines on the photos. I still see no one else doing it that way, cheers WayneRay 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

ThumbnailsEdit

Here is the discussion and it looks like thumbnails should not have names of photographers as a copyright statement as you were thinking here WayneRay 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Arnica montanaEdit

Hello, I want to work on Tephritis arnicae. You did Image:Arnica montana.jpeg, it's a great photography but Is it possible to have one with more pixels to do a zoom on animals? Thank you! Abalg

I must have a look into my archive... But I think the picture is so small because I can't get a higher resolution otherwise I'd have uploaded a bigger version. Fabelfroh 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your name in galleriesEdit

Hello. First I want to thank for all your great photographs you contribute, so thanks! Upon viewing some galleries which feature your pictures, I've notice you include you name under each one. This is goes against Commons and all of Wikimedia's projects' normal practice. All credit can be claimed on the image description page, so there is no need to do this elsewhere. Just like on Wikipedia, we do not sign are contributions within the article. On Commons, galleries are our articles. If everyone did what you're doing it could lead to a lot of problems. Some images have ten or more authors. Everytime someone tweaks or improves an image, they would add their name to an ever-growing list of authors. Galleries would be consumed with text. All author info should be contain in one spot. If someone comes a long and modifies one of your photographs and is unaware they need to update the author info somewhere else, should you really be taking full credit, do you even want to be taking full credit. What if that picture is used on 100 different pages on 100 different wikis, should that person have to go and update each page it's used on? As you can see, there are many reasons (including legal ones) why we don't include attributions outside of the image namespace. I didn't even mention the ethical issues (many would see this as vanity). Please refrain from including your name on galleries in the future. Thank you.

By way, based on your comments here, I think you should know that simply saying who took a photograph has nothing to do with copyright. Rocket000 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not as easy as you might think. I'm including the copyright information (and the original author too) in the EXIF data of the jpeg-Image. Deleting that information on the thumbnail-generated image still is a violation. There were some discussions on "Image Pump" but without results. Someone suggested that I rather should not bring this topic to the Admin noticeboard. Another one even said that it is illegal to include GFDL information in the EXIf data.... (if that'd be true you'll have to delete over 600 photos..) I'm tired of this topic. No one cares except me. I'm not sure if i'll upload photos to the commons in the future because of this uncertain licensing issues. Fabelfroh 08:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I really hope you continue to upload your photographs as they are great quality and very beneficial to the community. Maybe you should look into other licensing options like CC-SA-3.0 or CC-BY-3.0. The GFDL is a great license, however, using it for things outside of it's original intended use seems to cause problems. Also, if deleting EXIF data is a violation, you're not the one doing it so you wouldn't be held liable (the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of Mediawiki's software, would be). I wouldn't worry about it too much and good luck! Rocket000 12:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not think most people worry about the thumbnails, they are not very valuable versions of their images. If you worry about the license on thumbnails then you should worry very, very much about all the google thumbnail images (No EXIF data there, whatever the source. Even if the wiki thumbnails had EXIF, google's version still would not). I think the usage of such thumbnails is seen as fair use everywhere. Why is this so important to you? Do you worry people will use the thumbnail without acknowledgement? --Tony Wills 10:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:HydroEdit

I know User:Hydro's action of replacing your image was very, very annoying, but I think he was behaving reasonably, he just didn't recognise the convention here on commons that you should ask before replacing someone's images, and not replace QI or FP images. I had the same sort of thing happen to me when someone 'improved' the colours of my favourite upload and compressed it far too much. But I do think it is a bit harsh calling him 'stupid' - perhaps you might want to amend the Village Pump entry :-).

PS I am glad to see so many of your images have been acknowledged as Quality Images by others :-) --Tony Wills 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I overreacted a little and I already said sorry on his discussion. Fabelfroh 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

License optionsEdit

I am no expert in this area, but the requirement is that images must have at least one free license that allows for commercial use, derivative works, etc, etc. But it is allowed to have alternative licenses that are as restrictive as you like (I think) as long as the user has the choice between a free one (such as GFDL) and the more restrictive one (eg cc with non-commercial limitation) which may be easier for them to use eg {{self2|GFDL|Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}}. So I do not see anything stopping you from creating a custom license as long as it is dual licensed with a free one (eg GFDL). Someone may be able to help on Commons talk:Licensing. BUT if you create a custom license it will probably annoy some people, especially if it has a non-commercial element eg see Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual. I expect you will be strongly encouraged to use standard licenses. I hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills 11:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See also {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}}, {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa}} and {{GFDL-CC-triple}} --Tony Wills 11:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I'll look into it. Fabelfroh 11:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dryopteris cristataEdit

Hallo Kristian! ich betreibe eine homepage zur online- Bestimmung von Pflanzen: www.blumeninschwaben.de und würde gerne Dein Bild des Kamm- Wurmfarns auf meiner Site benutzen. Ich würde Deinen Namen "Kristian Peters" darunterschreiben und einen link z.B. auf diese Benutzerseite setzen. Schreib mir bitte an meyerguenzburg@onlinehome.de, ob das in Ordnung ist. Herzliche Grüße Thomas Dolgenblütler 15:32. 13.12.2007

Quellen der ArtartikelEdit

Servus Fabelfroh, Vielleicht hast du ja mal Lust und ergänzt bei deinen "alten" Artikeln noch die Quellen. Siehe auch: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Lebewesen/keine_Quellenangabe_nach_Autor#Fabelfroh mfg --Tigerente 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Servus, wär halt net wenn ich quasi die üblichen Verdächtigen für Pflanzen und Moose noch haben könnte. Ähnliches habe ich auch bei Fornax und Mbc Artikeln durchgeführt. Gruß --Tigerente 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)