Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, 99of9!

Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Hello, 99of9!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 05:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

QI discuss - 48 hoursEdit

Hi, Toby!

The CR rules state: The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
That means you have to wait at least 48 hours after the last entry vote before you can promote or decline.

And about Your photos: I like Your creativity. Keep going!

With best regards, George.
-- George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know George, I obviously hadn't read that carefully enough. --99of9 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Jim, You've provided an impressive array of Sydney images! I run into them on nearly every Sydney article I look at. And what's even better is that they're generally good quality images. However, I notice that they are often missing geocodes, which are often helpful for such architectural images. I was wondering whether you'd considered adding them? 99of9 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 99of9. This is the first I've heard of Geocodes. I'll add them to future uploads. Cheers, J Bar (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

a few thoughts...Edit be found here. --Ikiwaner (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have all my reviews watchlisted, and read them regularly because I'm new at some of these techniques, and am learning quickly from the expert knowledge pool, you included! I'll see if I can re-process that image in the next few days. But the good thing about that scene is that I work at Sydney Uni, so can retake it as often as I like until I get it right :-). 99of9 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Flighty pigeonsEdit

I don't think people appreciated what a good catch your photo of pigeons in flight was. Perhaps it was just because pigeons are so common. I think you could have let the FP nomination run a bit longer, it may not have been successful but 1 day is too soon to give up on it :-). I have made a derivative image File:Domestic pigeon flight.jpg.

I don't know whether I got the spacing quite right, but the background is quite uniform now, so we can cut them out and move them around without too many artifacts left over :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice - I'm new at all this, but I really appreciate the numerous users who've given me tips and shared their expertise. The secret to catching that shot was standing for about 15 minutes under a flock that circled around and around the entire time!!! It took me an awful lot of frames to get a good one. Your rearrangement is very pretty, thankyou. I would recommend it for FP, but I can already predict that the pigeons will not be considered sharp enough :). I put a cropped original in Bird Flight, and I'm just pleased that it is probably unique enough to remain amongst so many FPs. Anyway, now I just have to get out there and take a better picture. --99of9 (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:Colchicum Autumnale Oxford.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Colchicum Autumnale Oxford.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ( This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Oirat (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm the author (the link on the image page goes straight to my user page). Please look more carefully before tagging. 99of9 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Any other requests...Edit

:) Better? I do know I'll have to try harder when I go there again but it won't be just yet. I'll certainly give it a go. Thanks for the interest. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Your latest Kookaburra would be qi to me too :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was surrounded by gorgeous birds and diffuse light! --99of9 (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasonal greetingsEdit

Fresh off the camera - with thanks for your support in 2009 and regards --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --George Chernilevsky talk

Your requestEdit

I'll need to take a look for that. It's possible I may not have saved an alternate version with a transparent background. Durova (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pity. I assumed you had a layered image saved which you exported to jpg. That's worth doing in future because it's easier for you to provide transparency than it is for the user to accurately delete the white. Thanks for looking into it. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Was trying to satisfy your request. It actually turned out to be quite a bit harder than originally expected. Was a foray into a new area; sometimes forays don't go smoothly. Durova (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it is hard once the white has to be removed. This is why it's harder for the user than for the creator (if the creator does it with a white background layered format). I won't remove my support on this particular image, but I will probably oppose if it is not available in future non-rectangular images. Thanks again for your efforts. --99of9 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schiller edit1.jpgEdit

Would you reconsider your review in light of the response? Durova (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your hint about the fringes on my water droplet shot. I agree that they don't look natural but they appear in the RAW file already (I'm pretty new on Commons. I assume CA is compression artifacts?). Any idea where they might come from?

--Pjt56 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, CA stands for Chromatic Aberration. You might be able to fix it by selecting only those areas and desaturating it (to grey), or in your case changing the hue to the blue of the rest of the image. --99of9 (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. I was able to fix the problems. Still, I'd like to avoid them in the future. Any idea how?
Regards from snowy Germany to burnt-grass Australia :-)
--Pjt56 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your FP candidateEdit

Hi, I like your picture and tried myself an edit, as there were some complaints. If you think it´s any good, you could put it up as an alternative. Greetings Nikopol (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've obviously got to improve my GIMP skills. I've put it up for consideration, and at least one person likes it better. --99of9 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your new FP candidateEdit

Hi, once again I was bored, played around a little in photoshop and eventually came up with a version of your grasshopper which is slighly sharper (whithout much haloing, as I used various masks). Yet I´m not shure how the system works; when uploading my edit as a new version of your image, would this high-jack your candidacy, or would it still be recognized as your image? And could you revert easily, in case you don´t like it? Greetings Nikopol (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not really certain whether people prefer uploading over the top and reverting, or as a new image. I think it depends how extensive the edits are and whether or not they have the possibility of being contentious. Since it's in the middle of a FP nom, it's probably easier to do it the same way you did the last one, and put it up as an alternative (sometimes alternatives seem to split the vote, but I'm not worried about that here). That way we can get more eyes than yours and mine to do the comparison. Linking the derivative image properly to the original is fine in terms of recognition (as you did last time). --99of9 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I´ll simply wait until your photo has been featured, and then upload it sometime as an alternative, so it won´t interfere with the candidacy. The improvement is not really great, no need for an alternative vote. Cheers! Nikopol (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, up to you. I'll just try to get some more opinions on the edit if I'm unsure. BTW, thanks for your cloning on the astronaut pic, I've just changed to support. --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


hey; replied to your query @ the poty2009 prep page, but wanted to follow-up on here.

in short: still a work in progress, & mostly i am just playing with the designs to see how they look, but if/when it's done, all the relevant info should be on the page/product description.

was interested in feedback on the designs, viability and/or desirability of using this to fundraise for poty prizes, etc.

or: would people buy this? lol

also, any suggestions in general...

(remember, it's cafepress; nobody "gets rich" from sales but cp. the prices listed are @ "cp cost", any profit would be a markup on the prices as shown now, & if the whole thing was a brilliant success we might have $100 or so (total) as a prize budget for poty 2009 @ the end of the undertaking.)

also, also; if you were interested in doing anything @ cafepress/or similar, i'd be happy to work with you/teach you how, anytime. you do good stuff on here.


Lx 121 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My opinions are as follows:
  • License terms must be respected - the author should be attributed on the products themselves, not just the page about the products.
  • We have images that are good enough for people to sell and that others will want to buy.
  • I don't think poty prizes are necessary or desireable.
  • I have no interest in how much profit can/will be made, this is tangential to the requirement to respect the license.
  • Cafepress is a useful service, but I don't have much interest at the moment.
99of9 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "99of9/Archive 1".