Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Kgorman-ucb!


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, Kevin Gorman!

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


Hey! I uploaded a couple of historical shroom shots, from 1904. Perhaps you can check the categories for me and maybe they can be used someplace, somewhere!

Missvain (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Polystictus is not the genus it would be placed in now. Fungal taxonomy is... complicated. Names change a lot - and used to change even more. It's not uncommon at all, especially when you are dealing with papers from before the 90's - and ESPECIALLY with anything close to this old - for the name used in the original paper to not be the name in modern use. To make it even more confusing, sometimes two different people will be using the exact same name for two different mushrooms. To figure out the modern name from something is not always easy or a straightforward judgment - to do it ourselves definitively, we'd have to try to trace the synonymy through the literature (which is a hard task, since often descriptions will be 1850 or prior.) Luckily, there's an online database that many institutions contribute to called Index Fungorum that makes it really easy to see if any given name is currently accepted, and if it isn't to see what the currently accepted name is.
This particular polypore has had at least twelve different names previously, and been placed in at least ten different genera. It would now be placed in the genus Pycnoporus, as Pycnoporus cinnabarinus. We do have other images of it currently, Category:Pycnoporus_cinnabarinus. We should probably put in a rename request for it, and categorize it in that category, but we should mention that it was referred to as Polystictus cinnabarinus by the original author. I probably wouldn't use it in the actual article about the species because they are all dried out... but it occurs to me that we don't have an article about fungal taxonomy or the history of fungal taxonomy when we really should have both. Adding to my todo list. It'd be a cool image for one of them, illustrating how in flux taxonomy has been.
The Laetiporus image is really cool, although we do have a decent set of images for the species and genus already. The article on ENWP could use some more photos though, I'll try to incorporate it at some point. <3, Kgorman-ucb (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Shroom pornEdit

Found this on Flickr from one of my favorite nature photogs: File:Toppled.jpg --Missvain (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Any clue on what this is? It was found at the Petrified Forest in Calistoga in December. :) Image:Fungi at petrified forest near calistoga - Stierch.JPG SarahStierch (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure. I'm bad at identifying polypores :( Kgorman-ucb (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
At least we know it's a polypore. That's more than I would have known =) SarahStierch (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


/人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploads by EHammidEdit

Regarding File:"The Promised Land".jpg and the like, how do you know that that uploader own the intellectual property of the paintings? I don't see an OTRS ticket on the files. 19:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

See my response on the file talk page. An OTRS ticket can of course be sent in, but tagging files for speedy deletion when uploaded with valid licensing tags isn't a great idea. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually that's the standard procedure for derivative images of artwork that is obviously not in the public domain. Every day we get thousands of uploads by people claiming that something is their own work when it is still a blatant copyvio. Unfortunately we can't afford assuming good faith when it comes to copyright. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Something being standard procedure still doesn't make it a good idea, and if CSD'ing images uploaded with valid licensing tags is standard procedure, then something is odd at Commons - not that that would be surprising. Tagging something as missing evidence of permissions? Sure. Tagging something uploaded by a user with actual contributions on a WMF project? Pretty odd. Though, for that matter, an anonymous email to OTRS (since OTRS doesn't require ID'ing to WMF for copyright claims) provides no more surety of a copyright claim than a claim made on-wiki. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Emails sent to OTRS must come from a verifiable address that is affiliated with the subject or original author. I.e. anonymous emails will be ignored. And as to CSD'ing images with a valid license tag, it's the same as CSD'ing and deleting copyright infringements of text at Wikipedia. First of all anyone on the internet can claim to be the person who created a work. And then there are those people who simply aren't aware of the copyright issue. And that is for a number of common reasons.
  • A big share of uploaders at Commons seems to think that once they find something online it's in the public domain because it is publicly available.
  • Then are those who think that owning a physical copy of an artwork or a copy of a photograph puts them into a position to release it under a free license as "own work". That is also wrong for obvious reasons because owning the or the original work doesn't make them own the intellectual property by default.
  • Finally, another lot of people seems to think that "uploader" equals "|author=" in the upload dialogue, so they grant a license of their choice for works that they didn't create.
I'm not applying any of those specific cases to EHammid, but from my experience as a patroller on Commons, I was not surprised to see their uploads and acted accordingly. And for the record, your removal of the speedy deletion tags without further action was even beyond policy. Unlike Wikipedia, CSD tags cannot simply be removed at Commons. If you have a look at the {{Speedy deletion}} template, it says: "If you disagree with its speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed." And Commons:Deletion policy says "If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request". With the missing evidence note applied I don't think that we need a full discussion now, but for future reference, please don't remove CSD tags without nominating the file for a full discussion. There's even an automated Javascript for that, see "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox menu to the left. De728631 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really care if my removal of the speedy deletion tags was beyond Common's policy: it very well may have been, but the CSD tags were incorrect. I'm not going to launch a procedural deletion request for files that I know are properly licensed. An OTRS email will not be any more verifiable than the claims of two users on-wiki here will be: no OTRS agent has access or can obtain access to the information needed to verify the authenticity of an email from someone claiming to have the rights to Valeska's works. It's perfectly understandable to ask for further information about the rights situation of the works (which will be forthcoming,) but silly to try to CSD them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Kevin Gorman".