Hey! I noticed the following on someone else's talk page and thought it would be good to have on my own.
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.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
breaks in the info templatesEdit
It does make the info page require more space on each image page. A lot of folks barely tolerate the Info pages as is. With that said, I am glad to see someone expressing an interest. Also thanks for catching the Close bracket error.
As you may have read, I am undertaking yet another rewrite of the Info Template code. All the Info page you edit will be converted over to the new format- so no worries there. Just thought I'd let you know that this will change in the new month or so... Not a high priority for me at the time, so it may slide. -Mak 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Regards, -Mak 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I was't sure what was considered the correct way to do it. I noticed a lot of places where images are in both articles and categories, and I was trying to be consistant with that. I couldn't find any clear guidelines for what should be in an article and what should be in a category. I can see advantages to both ways -- Nonenmac 12:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, good to see more US stamp images coming in! I have a question about resolution though - the full-size images seem awfully fuzzy. At the sizes you're using, the engraving lines should mostly have sharp edges and individual paper fibers should be visible too. Pushing the scanner past its plausible limits perhaps? Stan Shebs 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that your scans look a lot sharper than mine. I've been scanning at the max resolution, adjusting the rotation a bit if needed and then shrinking down to a reasonable size. I'll try scanning at some lower resolutions and see how it works. Thanks for the observation. Nonenmac 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- My scanner is rated at 2400 dpi, but I scan at 1200 dpi, rotate, and then scale down to 600 dpi. For typographed designs I usually do a edge-sharpening filter, but not for line-engraved, because at 600 dpi patterns of parallel lines will develop artifacts and the like. Which scanner do you have? I have an Epson 2400 Photo. Stan Shebs 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't get any better results with our Canon scanner, though it was rated the same as your Epson, so we went out and got a new Epson 4490, which does a much better job. If you look at my later scans (starting at 1898) in User:Nonenmac/postage stamps you can see the difference. Thanks for giving me an excuse to get a new toy. Nonenmac 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Categories in Category:OdonataEdit
Hi Nonenmac, I have seen, that you have uploaded a lot of Odonata images. :-) You also created many categories. We will try to change the long tree to a shorter one (see Category:Coleoptera and Category:Lepidoptera) to make navigation easier. You are invited to discuss this at irc://irc.freenode.net/bio.wikipedia 2006-11-27 7:00 p.m. (UTC). Best regards, --Olei 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Screwed up the Artist Template!!Edit
I have modified the Artist Template in error, and don't know how to revert it. Very sorry indeed - could you please help? I was trying to create a new template for an artist, and I thought it would do just that - not modify the template. My apologies and many thanks. Yellow Lion
OK, I worked at it and think I have managed to revert the modifications. Sorry to have bothered you... Yellow Lion
|Image deletion warning||Image:John Trumbull self portrait 1793.jpg 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
--hklinke 12:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
TUSC token 27a4267365cf84ef3ae5ba329a7709cbEdit
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 27a4267365cf84ef3ae5ba329a7709cb
Octomino Image ErrorEdit
Hello, I noticed that your file, All 369 free octominoes.svg at File:All_369_free_octominoes.svg has two errors (impostors?). In particular, two of the polyominoes are heptominoes, not octominoes.
The first is on the seventh row down from the top and sixth column in from the left. It's grey. The other is on the third row from the bottom and twelfth column in from the left. It's green and looks like a staircase.
File:Dragonfly_ran-313.jpg 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.
Hi, my research group has been doing some work on polyominos and there are two heptominos in your octomino figure. The first is 6 from the right on line 7. The second is the second green structure on line 17. I removed the figure from the polyomino and octomino pages but it'd be good to fix - is there a bug in your enumeration algorithm? The integer sequence A000105 suggests that there are 369 octominos - if this number is from your algorithm, it should be fixed.
- It was too much work to check manually once! Might be better for you to check by generating then with a different method and comparing results? I am not sure how you have them organized. Ishino Keiichiro's polyomino data is apparently organized from most significant to least significant bit, in an 8x4 grid for octominoes. So you get: this (and the binary representation). In a chart it would look like testwiki:File:369.svg.
- This could probably be easily recreated by taking all permutations of 8 bits in a 32 bit number, organizing in the 8x4 grid, checking and eliminating diagonals/floaters, rotating/mirroring/upper-lefting all to most significant bits and removing duplicates, and then sorting by most significant bits (lazily done by converting to binary numbers and sorting). Just an idea. Splarka (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit
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.
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]]
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 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Peony Ant 4818.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4820.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Pardosa Thin-legged wolf spider RN4754.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4829.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 5032.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4827.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Eastern Chipmunk 1745.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4994.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4816.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 5079.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4947.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:RamseyTheory K5 no mono K3.svg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 5008.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 5030.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4819.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony RAN-5817.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 5072.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 4828.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 5065.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Peony Ant 5067.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:George Edward Davenport.jpg was uncategorized on 7 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Anemone virginiana 3715.jpg was uncategorized on 22 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Valery Havard - US Army photo.jpg was uncategorized on 28 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nonenmac; May I point out that Ambiguous is not a COM:RENAME criterion? Harmonize (Criterion 6) fits better, perhaps. You've been a file mover since last June with no complaints, but I see a November move that does not comply with my reading of the criteria either. Please review the rename criteria, if you would, and cite one of the listed criterion in your edit summary. The discussion at Commons_talk:File_renaming#Too_general_names may be helpful to you as well. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the moves in question, in which genus and specific epithet are for some reason merged with no delimiter between them, to some extent fit all of the criteria except the first and last. They are meaningless if the reader can't figure out where the space goes. They are misleading if the reader thinks the space goes in the wrong place, or that there is no space, or more than one space. That's pretty much what I meant by ambiguous. (Maybe that's only "potentially misleading".) They are also errors because the correct spelling includes a space. It's inharmonious because they may occur in the wrong place in an alphabetized list of images, where most of the others are spelled correctly. Nonenmac (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 02:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Use of your picture for a bookEdit
We’d like to use one of your pictures for a book that will be publish next fall. On wikimedia, it says that the picture are copyright free.
The title of the book is Secrets de plantes 2 and the name of the author is Fabien Girard. The initial print run will be 1000 copies.
We’d like to have your autorisation by e-mail to use this picture. If you accept, what is the exact name of the source that we must write beside the picture?
Here are the link of the picture.
Stéphane Aubut Editor assistant for Les Éditions JCL
Hi. See this uploads: File:Pascal's Triangle divisible by 2.svg, File:Pascal's Triangle divisible by 3.svg, File:Pascal's Triangle divisible by 4.svg, File:Pascal's Triangle divisible by 5.svg. In bottom line: "1 ... 2380, 380, 136, ... 1". Is it right? 560+120=/=380. Can yof fix it? (It is translated info from plWiki: ). Jakubtr (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think I fixed them all OK. Just matter of changing the text in the svg file. Let me know if you see any other problems.--Nonenmac (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
File tagging File:Solanum ptychanthum 001.jpgEdit
|This media was probably deleted.|
Thanks for uploading File:Solanum ptychanthum 001.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 (email@example.com). This also applies if you are the author yourself. undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded (
Editor @ ar.wikiEdit
Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Podod 001 lhp.jpgEdit
Quality Image PromotionEdit
Your image has been reviewed and promoted★
Congratulations! Viburnum dentatum 4658.jpg, which was produced 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.We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Hi Nonenmac - could you make a small correction to File:Pinus ponderosa & arizonica subspecies range map 0.png and File:Pinus ponderosa subspecies range map 0.png please? For some unknown reason, I can't open the full size originals to work on them. The correction is that the 3 small green dots in westernmost Washington state need to be changed to red (i.e., from Pinus ponderosa subsp. ponderosa to subsp. benthamiana). I've done the other three versions, which I was able to open; check any of them to see the difference. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
higher resolution of File:Neuchâtel_Herbarium_-_Isoetes_echinospora_-_NEU000020012.tifEdit
Hi , I just want to inform that after viewing that you have cropped and reused this file I uploaded a higher resolution in case you would like to have a better cropp.--Chandres (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Byrsonima lucida range mapsEdit
Hi, could you take a look at the range maps that you created for this plant (Category:Byrsonima lucida range maps)? The data that were used are for the US only, and the plant is far more important on Caribbean islands. I don't know what to suggest, perhaps the images and the category should be deleted, since I don't know a source of better data other than the text entry at USDA GRIN. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The source was Elbert Little's Atlas of United States Trees, Volume 5. Florida, so it just showed the native range within the state of Florida. I agree that makes it quite misleading. I don't mind if the files are deleted. I could modify the maps to show the species present on the islands shown in the ARS-GRIN database if there is an interest, but that could be misleading too if the tree is only native to parts of the larger islands. - R. A. Nonenmacher (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Please be more careful when providing the source url for images you upload. I found and fixed this one as your url was not for the correct image. Thanks for your uploads. Ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
ich bin auf der Suche nach dem Originalbild zu dem Scan des Ölgemäldes von Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg. Können Sie mir weiterhelfen? Aus welcher Quelle stammt der Scan? Danke für Ihre Hilfe! Sgs12 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I probably just grabbed it from an art-print dealer site like: http://www.art9000.com/poster/en/artist/image/eduard-radtke/17131/1/115065/christian-gottfried-ehrenberg--radke/index.htm . There seem to be a number of these on the web with this print advertised. I probably just hit zoom and copied the enlarged image. — R. A. Nonenmacher (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
By way of information for the future, when you want to crop an image, as you did for File:Physalis virginiana (42924079215) 2x3.jpg, I suggest you use the CropTool that can be activated in your commons Preferences, under Gadgets. The CropTool will then appears in the left side of your screen. It saves everyone a lot of time because it transfers all the correct and appropriate information into the cropped image, such as source, license, author, etc. It even leaves a backlink to the original and visa versa so long as the original has been positively reviewed. That way all the proper information is there and does not need to be manually reviewed by volunteers. If you are just cropping a small bit of the image like a frame you can decide to overwrite the original image but for more major crops you should upload the cropped version as a separate new image, which you did, but you have a choice. I hope you can see how everyone can save time and frustration by using CropTool. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
we would like to use the following picture for a biodiversity handout to train and inform farmers.
Your user name along with the CC license and the link mentioned above will be named in the picture index (sorted by pages number and order of pictures).
It would be great if you could let me know whether you are fine with us using the picture in the described way.