Klaproth

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Klaproth!

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) 20:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Uranophane-alpha and Uranophane-beta.jpg

Hallo Klaproth, über den Artikel bin ich grad zufällig auf Dein o.g. Bild gestoßen. Es sieht wirklich super aus, aber (oder besser grad drum) hätte ich dazu zwei Fragen:

• Du hast Deine anderen Bilder bisher immer mit Klaproth als Urheber "unterschrieben", diesmal jedoch mit F. Rohowski. Ist das Dein richtiger Name? Wenn ja, wäre es aus Gründen der Nachvollziehbarkeit besser, ihn dennoch mit Deiner hiesigen Benutzerseite zu verlinken, damit keine unnötigen Fragen nach der Urheberschaft kommen. Sollte das Bild aber von jemand anders gemacht worden sein, wäre eine korrekte Freigabe des tatsächlichen Urhebers an das OTRS-Support-Team (dem ich auch angehöre) vonnöten.
• Wie gesagt, sieht das Bild super aus und wäre möglicherweise sogar ein Kandidat für die Wahl zum Exzellenten Bild. Leider ist das Bild aber wohl zu stark komprimiert worden, hat also nicht mehr die erforderlichen 2 Mio. Pixel Auflösung und ist zudem im unteren Bereich (vermutlich wegen der Komprimierung) etwas verrauscht. Hast Du evtl. noch die Originaldatei, damit man das Bild mit weniger Verlusten noch einmal bearbeiten kann?

Viele Grüße -- Ra'ike T C 10:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Ra'ike. Wie kann ich die korrekte Freigabe erreichen? Ich persönlich habe die Genehmigung von Herrn Rohowski, das Bild zu verwenden.

Wegen der Komprimierung kann ich noch einmal versuchen etwas zu machen. Dafür brauche ich aber etwas Zeit. Grüße und danke für Deine Hilfe --Klaproth (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Klaproth, auf der oben verlinkten OTRS-Seite steht ja eigentlich das für eine korrekte Freigabe nötige Vorgehen, aber ich nehme mal an, Herr Rohowski wird sich nicht sehr für den Lizenz- und Freigabekram auskennen. Am Besten nimmst Du also nochmal per E-Mail Kontakt zu ihm auf und schickst ihm eine bereits ausgefüllte Freigabevorlage zu. Passende Vorlagen findest Du entweder unter Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverständniserklärung (Rechte-Inhaber) oder auf de:WP:TV#Einverständniserklärung für Bild/Foto-Freigaben. Letztere hat den Vorteil, dass die gewünschte Lizenz noch nicht vorausgefüllt ist. Du hast für das Bild zwar die Lizenzen PD (gemeinfrei) und CC-by-sa-3.0 (Creative Commons Namensnennung und Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen) gewählt, aber vielleicht ist das ja nicht unbedingt im Sinne des Urhebers. Unter de:Hilfe:Gängigste Lizenzen findet sich zur Erleichterung der Wahl die bei Wikipedia gängigsten Lizenzen mit kurzer Erklärung der jeweiligen Bedingungen. Sollte Herrn Rohowski die Lizenz egal sein, füllst Du den Teil mit den bereits von Dir gewählten Lizenzen aus.

Dann bittest Du Herrn Rohowski, die Nutzungsgenehmigung mit seinem Namen zu unterzeichnen und sie an permissions-de@wikimedia.org zu schicken. Sollte er die Mail an Dich zurückschicken (kommt auch öfter vor), dann leitest Du sie einfach ans OTRS weiter (bitte komplett mit Mailkopf von Rohowskis Mail).

Ich hoffe, Du kommst mit meinen Erklärungen klar. Viel Glück und viele Grüße -- Ra'ike T C 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC) P.S.: Ach ja, sollte Herr Rohowski kein Deutsch verstehen, gibt's die Freigabeerklärungen natürlich auch auf englisch oder in anderen Sprachen (siehe Balken) ;-)

QI declines

Hi. I saw you declined two of my images at QI with comments regarding they could be "any beach anywhere" (or variants upon that theme). You seem to misunderstand what QI is about - we do not care that a photo could have been taken in many places, we care only that the photo is of good quality. Value is not relevant to the review process. I will not argue that that beach was QI, but I think the train image may well be. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mattbuck, please do not be offended. I was reading the guidelines before and now again. With respect to the mere technical quality you are right. However (maybe it is me being new), I personally interprete the following lines of the guidelines: "The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image" and especially "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects" also with respect to what I see on the photo. Personally (and with no offence to you nor any other photographer) I do not understand why a photo in which I cannot clearly see what it depicts, and why and where it was taken (with respect to the object) is a "quality image". For this lack of understanding I did not decline your "train at King's Cross" because it might have some significance that I don't see. I was just browsing a variety of photos and reviewed a couple of them (including pictures from other users) based on common sense and, in my opinion, with respect to the guidelines. Feel free to change my review from "decline" to "discussion" and let others argue about it. Have a good night --Klaproth (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Boltwoodite needles.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Not geocoded<done> (criterion 5), but it appears that it could be. Can you say a bit about why you chose subscope "needles on smoky quarz matrix", please? It seems to me that this image (with geocode) is a good candidate for main scope, i.e., no subscope. Please link scope when possible (see my edit). For the "usedin" parameter, please list uses by our sister projects. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment The Boltwoodite has at least two known facies see: file:Boltwoodite-240593.jpg it is useful to add "needle"; for smoky quartz I agree he should not be in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Info This image: file:Boltwoodite-240593.jpg shows an atypical form of boltwoodite. I added "on smoky quarz" because this is the usual matrix for this mineral, and exceptionally well crystallised from this location. No probs with change of scope though. -- Klaproth (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Criteria satisfied (modified scope: Boltwoodite needles), in my opinion. I think "on smoky quarz matrix" is not appropriate since it seems clear that this is a suitable image for scope: Boltwoodite needles. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good scope, good image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ianthinite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Good & Useful (Look at the change in the syntax of scope.) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Needles of curite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Look at the change in the scope are you okay? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)  Comment Yes. On way or another, it is the only high-res image of idiomorphic curite needles, so either scope is okay. -- Klaproth (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Arsenuranospathite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Should link to the category related to the scope. Otherwise looks very good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Done look at the change in the syntax of scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, great & very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Agree, best in scope. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Swamboite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Haynesite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Acicular Uranophane on arsenuranospathite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Compreignacite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For VI

Hi, Very nice series of uraniferous. We must give the international name and, especially, attach the scope from category that contains the image. I correct the first, do it for others. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I've changed the scope for all of them. The international name should be as given. Best --Klaproth (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Oursinite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Very nice series of uraniferous. We must give the international name and, especially, attach the scope, the category that contains the image. I correct the first, do it for others. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Phosphuranylite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Strelkinite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Schröckingerite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Uranospathite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Masuyite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Umohoite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Uranyl chloride.tif

File:Uranyl chloride.tif 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!

Leyo 20:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)