Hello - thank you for providing images to the wikimedia commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the commons should be useful to all users of wikimedia projects - this is possible only if the images can be found by other people. To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should either place the images on topic pages (galleries), or put the images directly into a category, or do both. Which of those possibilities is preferred is however a matter of debate, see here.
The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There is a large number of completely unsorted images on the commons right now, see Commons:Really unused. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do! Thank you. -- Duesentrieb 11:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not that familiar with the structure of commmons so for the moment im just contributing some pics. I hope others will organize the structural part of this project. Then it's most efficient in my opinion.-Svdmolen 11:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not really, because it is quite difficult to even find images that need categorisation. Please do put them somewhere, the categorisation structure is not that difficult. To find an appropriate category, start with the categories listen on the main page and work your way down to where you think the images would fit. If you're not sure where to put them exactly, put them in a "general" category. For instance for your pictures of cristaline sulfur, i would suggest Category:Minerals.
You are right that finding and creating good categories can be difficult and time consuming. But keep in mind that if you con't do it, someone has to do it for you. I took part in an effort a few months ago to find and categorize all the "lost" images on the commons - several thousands. It took weeks to sort through them, and there are not many people who are willing to do that. I fear right now there are again many thousand pictures that are lost to the world because thy are not categorized - that's similar to "orphan" pages in the wikipedia: if it is not linkd, it's no good. So, please make your imnages useful for others by putting them somewhere they can be found. -- Duesentrieb 13:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for putting your images into categories now! And thank you for the many images :) sorry for nagging earlier, but structuring our content is really important. -- Duesentrieb 18:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem at all. It takes little affort to at least give it some category. I can't promish that it will be the correct one but I'll try. -Svdmolen 20:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all: Thanks for categorizing, we have far too many unsorted images here. As to your problem with User:Factumquintus: as far as I saw he one "uncategorized" images that where already on a gallery page in one of the relevant categories. As long as the pictures can be found by navigating the category structure, I don't see a problem. Cases where there exists a page and a category for the same topic are a little problematic - it is unclear if images should be in both, the page and the category, in such cases...
I belive User:Factumquintus meant no harm - I hope you can work together to find a good solution for structuring that part of the commons. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 8 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
[2], [3] These two pictures show a carterpillar that lives at the underside of an acacia leaf. I have seen up to three of them living together on one leaf.
I think it's possible, but most of all pictures (found with google) only show the upper side. And I have no idea how variable colors can be. The Tolman says: "females bigger and upper side more yellow (wing basis)". Not much, and nothing about variations. So this guess is very uncertain. --Olei21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, before writing an article I want to ask you for this little Butterfly. According to [5], [6] it should be Triodia sylvina. Do you agree? Greetings, --Olei19:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I belive this image
Timandra comae
is Timandra comae. The north-east species of europe should be Timandra griseata (according to some german literature). Whats your opinion? Gretings, --Olei20:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I have seen that you have set a redirect from T. griseata to T. comae. Please remember we have two different species here. T. comae is very common and wide spread in middle Europe and griseata has a boreal spreading (Estonia, Sweden, Finland and the north-west of Russia. In case of the "french" picture I agree that this is possibly T. comae. But the 2nd one - I have no idea. Consequently this one should be left in the article T. griseata. So I think the redirect is not a good solution! What do you think about my suggestions? Greetings, --Olei20:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi, ya I'm sorry I forgot this remark by you when I made it a redirect. I think you'r right. I looked on site, I trust, [7] and must say it might be difficult to determinate the specie at all. Perhaps it's best to undo the redirect and leave it like it was. -Svdmolen15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Syntomis spec.
Hi, some time ago I put the following image in the german determination page. But there is no response until now. Maybe you will have a try? I found similar species at www.leps.it . The first is Syntomis kruegeri, second Syntomis ragazzi and last but not least Syntomis phegea. I tend to Syntomis ragazzi, but I have no idea how variable the wings can be. What do you think? Greetings, --Olei18:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi, perhaps this site might be of help. I would say Syntomis ragazzii aswell since colors and size of spots match more but there is only one on the internet to compair the picture with... -Best regards Svdmolen19:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Thanks for your message. Indeed, there is a problem. I will write in Paolo to obtain his agreement (or not) for the use of his images in this way. If it does not agree, it will be a pity, because there is not much photograph of butterfly on Wikipédia. Regards.--Valérie7511:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, thanks for categorising Udaspes folus. I just wanted to know how you did it so quickly. I mean I hadn't even categorised the pics and you found them and put them in a category within 2 minutes of my having uploaded them. Its amazing.
--Viren18:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I was in the proces of categorising other butterflies when I saw your contribution. So it was no problem categorising them quickly :o) -Svdmolen22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC) BTW I spotted them using the function "latest files" which can be found on the left under the wikimedia logo.Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I see in the category PD-other reasons a lot of images of butterflies uploaded by you like this. We have the specific template PD-Australia. Do you think that I could change your PD-because with this tag? Is the same law that says that your images are PD? I hope that my sucks english was clean. If not I'm sorry. Bye --RED DEVIL66608:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi Red, I prefer to let it stay how it is. Now a clear link to the PD statement is given and there is no discussion about the rights. When a standard claim is made I think some over active users here will try to get it deleted. But as long as all links stay in the description, [8] en to the family of butterflies is might be not a big problem. -Svdmolen
Thanks for uploading Image:Viola riviniana-02 (xndr).jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}}to release it under the GFDL or{{PD-self}}to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Svdmolen, I would be grateful if you could do something about this (like block User:Fecal if you think he has acted deliberately harmfully, it looks like it to me) as I feel uncomfortable acting when I can't read the cartoons he uploaded. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi Elise, I can't even find the cartoon is the history so I geuss it has been deleted already. So I can't judge the situation. On the Dutch wikipedia we are used to give a warning before blocking. Perhaps we should start with that. What do you think? -Svdmolen20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Hoi, ik zou niet meer weten waar het vandaan kwam en weet eerlijk gezegd ook niet of ik het puur op ouderdom onder PD heb geupload. Als het weggegooid wordt zal ik het niet tegenhouden..... -Svdmolen17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Svdmolen,
as per Commons talk:Administrators, I am asking all admins to subscribe to commons-l, a mailing list for Wikimedia Commons policy and project discussion. Since many admins are only on Commons infrequently, this is a good way to alert people about important happenings. The mailing list is nominally multilingual, but predominantly English.
If you are already subscribed to commons-l, I apologize for bothering you, and you are free to ignore this message. If you don't want to use your regular e-mail account, feel free to leave me a message, and I can send you a GMail invite. Traffic on the mailing list is relatively low, and we do not expect admins to read all messages to the list, but it would be nice if you could check on it at least every few weeks. Thanks for your time,--Eloquence23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi Density, thanks for the determination. Cheers, Sander
Your Photo Orthetrum cancellatum-01 (xndr).jpgedit
Hi Svdmolen,
your very good photo in commons mentioned above seems to be in the wrong category (Orthetrum cancellatum). It seems to show a female of Sympetrum sp. (possibly S. striolatum or vulgatum) rather than orthetrum cancellatum. So I suggest, you should move it to the category sympetrum.
Best regards
Günter
User:g-u-t
Hi Günter, thanks alot for your correction. I deleted the old picture and uploaded it as Image:Sympetrum sp.-01 (xndr).jpg. Best regards, Sander
Thanks for uploading Image:Arthur-seyss-inquart.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. NielsF15:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hoi Niels, ik weet niet meer waar deze foto exact vandaan komt. Ik vermoed een .gov site, daar haalde ik toe veel afbeeldingen vandaan. Doe met de afbeelding wat je wilt. -Svdmolen17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello Sander, you just identified this butterfly as Idea leuconoe. But there are some subspecies of this species. Are you able to identify the subspecies on this photo, too? Thank you, DocTaxon18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Svdmolen, some time ago you moved Greta oto to Greta morgane. I can't remember the reason. Actually there is one image thas was determined as G. oto. At The Global Lepidoptera Names Index I did'nt found any hint for a synonym. Greetings, --Olei20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi Olei, It's along time ago since I made that change. I had to think for a while but I remembered that I did change it because the name was not possible. I again searched a site that I use often for name and date of author an location. That site tells me that Greta Oto is an old name for Greta Morgane Oto. So I resond that Greta Oto is a subspecies of Great Morgane. I remeber that the difference between the Greta Morgane Oto and the Greta Morgane Morgane had something to do with the white band but I can't find it. -Svdmolen07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Greta Garbo.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Kjetil_r15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Aquarium-Melbourne.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Shizhao08:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nuclear powerplant-01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Shizhao02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
High, my name is Siga, I am not really a specialist, but I have at least the Freude-Harde-Lohse, which is Standard for beetles, and I know to read it. And from that I mean, that the Cicindela maritima, that you put in the corresponding articel, is a C. hybrida. Somewhere maritima was a subspecies of hybrida, but now it is a species of its own and there are two differences between the two species. The one is, that maritima has spare whity hairs between the eyes and hybrida not. But unfortunatly you usualy don't see that on pictures. The second difference is, that the white waved band in the middle of the elytra with hybrida only soflty goes back, whereas with maritima the inner part is esential more back than the outer part. You can see that very clearly at the picture of Reitter, which is also in the gallery of the article C. maritima. Perhaps you may discuss that with another person and then decide yourself. Cheers --Siga21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (I'm writing with the same name in german and greek Wiki)Reply
Hi Siga, to start with I'm not an expert myself aswell. The reason why I named it Cicindela maritima was because I read that it had white hairs between the eye's and C. hybrida didn't. If you look at the picture closely and zoom in between the eye's I see some white hairs. Best regards, Svdmolen17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I will not insist, so this is my last remark in this matter. C. m. as we both agree, have hairs. They are hairy with thin hair in a field in the middle of the eyes, as you can see in http://www.koleopterologie.de/gallery/, any as you also can well see on your photo, there are only some thicker hairs near the eyes. On those photos you can also compare the white vaved band. But if you don't agree, feel easy with that too. --Siga11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please don't stop this discussion, for me it's important to get it right. Still I'm convinced it Cicindela maritima and after a new search even more. Give me the change to show you more evidence ;o). First look at this link and give special attention to the middle white waved band. Now look at this link, they are similar both Cicindela hybrida. And now the next: please look at this link and notice the broader band like on my picture. Next to that on the russian site the Cicindela maritima has some but not execive hair, like some pictures on the site you mentioned. Those pictures where of an larve I think not of an Imago. I would appriciated it very much if you would take a look to the links and give me your opinion. -Svdmolen15:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
High, here I am again. First of all, I didn't want to stop the discussion, because I feel my knowledges somehow superior to yours, but on contrary don't be enough specialist to decide in this difficult question. So just let me tell what I am thinking: Freude-Harde-Loose has its main aspect in the determination keys. It is speaking about beetles of middle Europe. The furcation for determination is a: middle of the front without hairs, (Only some long hairs at the edge of the eyes). This leads to C.gallica and hybrida. The other posibility is b: middle of the front with long hairs. This leads to C. campestris, C.soluta, C. silvicola and C. maritima. Going on till maritima, it says: formerly as subspecies of hybrida, but from this easily to recognize by the middle band, where the inner splotch is much more back to the outer splotch and the two splotsches of this band are only thinly connected. From this I deduct 1. that the main difference is the hair on the front, which you can see clearly on the link, I gave you. Now about your links. On the first you see three pictures. In the first the band is like maritima, in the last it is like hybrida and in the middle it is middle. But you don't see hairs on the front of either. Now to your second link. There are two pictures, the first is C.hybrida koshanki.... wich is a subspecies that doesn't exist in middle Europe. I would say, the band is really like C. maritima. The second picture is C hybrida hybrida, which is ours here, and you see the typical middle band, discribed by Freude-Harde-Lohse. No hairs in both cases. Now to your last link: C.maritima kirgisica, that is another foreign subspecies. You can see the spare hairs in between the eyes, and the form of the band differs extremely from our C. maritima and in fact looks very like C. hybrida. So alltogether, the form of the band seems to verify, especially in subspecies, but the hair for maritima and no hair for hybrida is right for all the subspecies. Which, by the way, is new to me, but not very astonishing. I see that you are deeply interested and I think you will agree after thinking it over. Let me know your decision. --Siga21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pay attention to copyright
Image:Rosalind Franklin.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
Thanks a lot, I never saw the larva of A. atropos although I know well the adult! I have more pictures from various sizes, I'm going to upload them in Wikimedia Commons. Regards --gian_d18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
i´ve got 3 pictures from the nl.wiki ([10], [11] and [12]), that would fit very well into the commons, but i don´t know which license is the right one. all of them are from the same author, with the same permission, only the 1. but only the first one does have a license tag. could you please look at them? thx --Kulac16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
The pictures are uploaded by me. The author hasn't given a specific license but the closes that matches the requirements of his statement is Cc-by. As far as I know that license is not allowed on Commons anymore. -Svdmolen16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
You could try to contact Cor Zonneveld on his site and ask him if he is willing to release some pictures under GFLD or an other license which is allowed on Commons. -Svdmolen16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Stockholm (xndr).jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs)05:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Blue hall stockholm city hall (xndr).jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs)05:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The inaugural newsletter of the Tree of Life project has been published. You are welcome to read the newsletter, comment on its contents, frequency and form, or unsubscribe by putting your name on my talk page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Smoke.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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:
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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Please delete the current version and make the new currend. I had made a mistake in the nubbers of middleman.
Thanks in advance. LaurensvanLieshout.
Ik heb de 2006 versie verwijderd, maar het vreemde is dat de 2006 versie nog steeds blijft verschijnen op de artikelen. Waarschijnlijk laad de computer het plaatje uit mijn tijdelijke geheugen (of zoiets). Als het zo blijft is het het makkelijkst om het bestand onder een nieuwe naam te up loaden, dan wis ik de huidige versie. -Svdmolen08:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
versie Image:Six degrees of separation 01.png up loaded . LaurensvanLieshout
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello
thanks for your uploads
Unfortunetaly, when you uploaded pic in reference, you forgot license and by this way this one runs risk of deletion. Could you tag it with a valid license as your other pics.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed you uploaded this image. I'm interested to know how you created the picture or where you found it, as it is one of the few Viking lander pictures on the wiki with correct colors (blue is blue instead of purple). Thanks, Van der Hoorn17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.
--Siebrand11:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hoi Sander, Ik zag dat je C. margaritata hebt gecorrigeerd in C. margaritatia. Moet het niet C. margaritaria zijn?
Groetjes, Floor. Fvlamoen20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Je hebt gelijk. Trouwens al een flinke hoeveelheid nieuwe vlinderartikelen van jouw hand op nl. Mooi werk. Groeten, Svdmolen
Thanks for uploading Image:Flu Vaccine.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. RaymondDisc.07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Silk road.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. 82.126.54.9119:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Thick oil on rocky beach.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Shizhao00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Please write deletion reason before deleting. Now, undelete these images, which was deleted by you and write a reason in deletion log. Thanks!--OsamaK19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
All images that are deleted were uploaded by my under temperary names for determination perpuse. Next time I'll put it in the deletion log -Svdmolen20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Dear Svdmolen/Archive. I am writing to you to inform you that because of inactivity, you may lose your adminship on Commons.
Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a two-week poll on the proposed policy's talk page).
If you want to keep your adminship, you have to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days. Note that if you don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will then lose the adminship anyways.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Svdmolen/Archive.
Thanks for signing at this page. Please note that your sysop-rights will be removed the next time we run an inactivity-section without any new notice, if you do not do 5 admin-actions till then.
Thank you for your long and helpfull work on Commons! abf/talk to me/12:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Thanks for uploading Image:LocationKaliningrad.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Cecil19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Wolframite.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Jodo23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:ManWithPetriDishes.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Jodo (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.mbm-dresden.de/transfer/unidentified.butterfly.6875.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.mbm-dresden.de/transfer/unidentified.carterpillar.6876.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.mbm-dresden.de/transfer/unidentified.carterpillar.6877.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.mbm-dresden.de/transfer/unidentified.insect.6878.jpg){kind=link}
_KL.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Blauwe-vuurvlinder.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Spaanse-pijpbloemvlinder.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Parnassius-apollo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
