Lithopsian

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Lithopsian!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:ESO - The Carina Nebula (by).jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

Especially do not overwrite if these are valued and/or quality images. Denniss (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Aat045.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Aat045.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Misclick?

You nominated COM:CSD for deletion. I hope this was a mistake. Revent (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Lithopsian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth 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 (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

DSS2 Images

If you delete the DSS2 images, Wikipedia will be in serious danger, so before they are deleted, I would rather have the images uploaded as images from some other sky survey that will work. SpaceDude777 (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but you may wish to reword that comment to avoid any suggestion of a threat. I don't know if replacing DSS images with a free-to-use alternative would avoid them being deleted, since the non-free image would still be in the history. I don't know what an alternative would be, but you might investigate 2MASS - it is infrared but covers the whole sky and is public domain. The Hubble legacy archive has superb imagery but only of a limited number of regions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the SDSS data use policy and the SDSS website image use policy. Lithopsian (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you delete SDSS images? Please read: http://classic.sdss.org/gallery/usage_policy.html Wikipedia is commercial or non-commercial? --Mylkomeda (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. I submitted the images into the deletion process with the reasons why I thought they needed to be deleted. An administrator agreed and deleted them. There were talk pages for every image submitted and nobody raised any objections within the minimum 7 day discussion period. Wikimedia Commons is for "free" images. DSS images do not fit the definition. See Commons:Copyright rules. Note that this particular subject has come up many times and there is little doubt that DSS/DSS2 images can't be hosted on Commons. There is a specific category so that they can be identified and deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You've proposed to delete the image of NGC 7010 (not uploaded by me). Regarding SDSS images, administrators propose erasing from wikimedia but never provide a complete explanation. First of all there are some that use them without problems, for example, Bosnia and Herzegovina, French. In addition, the "SDSS Image Usage Policy" (http://classic.sdss.org/gallery/usage_policy.html) claims: Any SDSS image on the SDSS Web site may be downloaded, linked to, or otherwise used for non-commercial purposes, provided that you agree to the following conditions: You must maintain the image credits. Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Your use of the image cannot be construed as an endorsement of any product or service If the image is to be used on a Web page, we also ask as a courtesy that you provide a link back to our site at http://www.sdss3.org/............. Then? What's the matter? Explain please. --212.131.172.133 11:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons only allows images which are "free". This explicitly prohibits images which are "free for non-commercial use". See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy for full details. Individual Wikipedia domains have less restrictive policies and allow some non-free images subject to local law and discretion. SDSS images, including images derived from SDSS data, are as you quote "may be ... used for non-commercial purposes" - hence they are not allowed on Wikimedia, but may be allowed on individual Wikipedia domains. Note that both DSS and DSS2 images have similar licensing. There are currently hundreds of them and they are all liable to be deleted at any moment, although they are somewhat tolerated since just hosting them isn't illegal - using them in certain situations would be though. I have an ongoing project to at least document them, and then people higher up the ladder will have the option to easily delete the whole lot of it becomes sufficiently urgent. Lithopsian (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, please stop querying me on this and asking the same question over and over. The policy is clear. Take it up in the appropriate forum, probably Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, but note that the first paragraph states "One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.". Lithopsian (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Now, what do you think about? http://www.sdss.org/collaboration/image-use-policy/

Image Use Policy New in DR14 we have updated our image license to a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). Any SDSS image on the SDSS Web site may be downloaded, linked to, or otherwise used for any purpose, provided that you maintain the image credits. Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Do you will continue to delete images? With love.--87.18.243.40 20:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ancient history, already discussed to death at Commons:Village pump. I assume you came here to gloat that you "won" now the policy has been changed? Stop being a dick and do something useful with your life. Lithopsian (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Cactus id

Hi there,

Why did you change this to M. backebergiana? Cactus identification is not something I know much about, but it was taken at a botanical garden with a tag right under it saying M. magnimamma. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Tags can get switched ;) If you remember the plant, or just use a bit of imagination on the photo, then it is a tall slender single stem with multiple dense rings of flowers near the tip. That's classic M. backbergiana. If it was taken earlier this spring, then that is also suggestive, since M. backbergiana has one strong flush of flowers in spring. M. magnimamma is a compact, eventually clump-forming, plant with distinctive prominent tubercles, wider and much shorter than M. backbergiana. Flowers are usually creamy to pinkish, although occasionally strong pink like the photo. There are subtle botanical differences between the flowers of the two species, but the most obvious to the casual glance is that the stigma lobes on M. backbergiana are green(-ish) while those on M. magnimamma are pink(-ish). Finally, for Mammillarias on of the most distinctive means of identication is the spine patterns: M. backbergiana has one or more central spines and 10 or more very similar radial spines, quite slender, yellow to brown even when older; M. magnimamma has just a handful of radial spines, usually no central spines at all, stronger, yellow-ish but usually grey with age, and very often the lowest much longer and curved. So the spine patterns of the two species are entirely different. The plant in the photo is definitely not M. magnimamma, and I'm 99% confident that it is M. backbergiana. Possibly ssp. enrnestii which is actually more common in cultivation than ssp. backbergiana although usually not identified explicitly. The differences between the two subspecies are minor, but the spines tend to brown rather than yellow and the flowers to a deeper pink. Hope that helps. Lithopsian (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Joke"

Hi, I just saw that you put a deletion banner to the picture of a black dwarf star, (this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_dwarf_star-bpk.jpg) apparently because you saw a joke, can you explain to me what's the joke? I don't see anything funny here, please don't be disrespectful. Baperookamo (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)