User talk:Cygnis insignis/Archive

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Image:Rhipidura_leucophrys_at_Meetup3.JPG[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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. Siebrand 17:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Category[edit]

The Gallery is already in Malvaceae, there is no need for duplication of a photo in the category if the photo is in a gallery connected to the higher up category, it is just a waste of space and duplication. WayneRay 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

It would be more productive to discuss it, for obvious reasons. You didn't use an edit summary or let me know. The category is more useful than the gallery. What was the outcome of the previous discussions on this topic - as above?
I am with the other group that the gallery is is more important, linked to the Category. If there is a subcategory as there seems to be quite a few around, of a species, not a Family, then I leave it. I and a few others feel a clean category is what should be displayed, the curious and researchers can find what they want by searching the subcategories or gallery articles. I apologize for not using the Summery, I usually do and it is: removed higher-order category, image is in a more specific gallery, again it was an oversite and probably done at 4 in the morning when I got off work from the post office. Your photos are beautiful though! I have mainly been editing the botanical photos for about a year now until that one guy put a million species categories and messed it all up, no I have been working in spurts here and there. Nice to meet you too. My profile is on en:Wikipedia under Wayne Ray WayneRay 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Illustrationes[edit]

10 images, superior in quality, were found here. Note that they differ from Tas. Library images already uploaded. Cygnis insignis 18:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, bugger. I can't be bothered re-uploading them at the moment. If you want to, go for it. And feel free to upload over the top of mine. Otherwise, I'll get to it eventually. Hesperian 06:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that; you're too kind. I'm not fussed. In a couple of cases I have deliberately kept both full page and cropped-to-plate versions, with the notion that the former is better for illustrating the plate itself, e.g. in the source transcription, or an article on the source; and the latter is better for illustrating the plant. I don't see any problem with extending that to images taken under different lighting conditions. Hesperian 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bihop Hales House, Perth.jpg[edit]

Hey, I see you put above on your user page. Isn't that the best looking house you've ever seen? Moondyne 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Yes, I've add no-license not no-source :-) (and it was my bot that has marked it. It can't understand that the right license was pd-self). Regards, --Filnik 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Crop[edit]

Hi, I am only the worker, the desisionmaker was Christian Nurtsch. I think he was right. There is no information lost in my loseless cropped version. And there are no irritating borders anymore. But I always respect the creators decision even if I think it is wrong. So if you don't change it I will do it neither. (loseless crop can be done with XnView) --Marku1988 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I am very very slowly getting the hang of the place, sigh SatuSuro 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeky[edit]

So I can see who you have been spending time with! SatuSuro 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

YES - a turn, and a cleanup of the pinch from gnangs copyright thingo - please - cheers SatuSuro 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it self - but need further later SatuSuro 03:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mulga Snake[edit]

laying in front of the 3 meter Boa to take pictures like this no worries, but for the mulga I'd never intentionally get that close without a good solid looking piece of glass well mounted in a steel frame. Gnangarra 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Trichoglossus haematodus, flowering Xanthorrhoea.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trichoglossus haematodus, flowering Xanthorrhoea.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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.

Your edits[edit]

It is completely unacceptable to remove categories from uploads, it is vandalism. Your opinion that galleries replace categories is not a reason to remove them from images, it is tantamount to edit warring. Please revert your extensive and unjustified removals of categories. Cygnis insignis 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all It is not vandalism and Secondly some of the categories were totally way out of place and innapropriate like the British sports photos of girls in bikinis playing soccer, some of the categories were things like the Sun, and Sand and England? If someone is looking for phtos of the Sun who the hell wants to see a bikini shot????? Or some of the others had up to 10 categories and half were really unrelated, really. It is you that should take a good look at over categorization. It is not vandalism, it's common sense, Take a relax pill and oh, I set up the Botanical illustrations category form about 6 to the present under a 100 new ones. and I will eventually put all the photos in galleries or categories approprite to the main category and your and others duplicate photos will be removed and put in the appropriate place WayneRay 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Please assume good faith. Also, be kind enough to review the guidance of COM:TOL#Images, "Images that are known with certainty to represent a particular species should appear in the species article, and not be categorized in any of the taxa categories. Images not so well-identified should be put directly in the most precise category to which they can be reliably assigned." Not everyone agrees with that guidance, but most people who are active in identifying and classifying biota concur with it. WayneRay's edits appear to be consistent with that guidance. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
WayneRay has repeatedly shown a lack of good will: just read all mesages on his user pages about categories. We have passed the stadium of assuming good faith.-- Havang(nl) (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Unknown insect species (placeholder).jpg[edit]

Psychidae A bagworm moth. I put the id on the description page and into Category Psychidae.Nice and very useful pic Slainte Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Unknown insect species Torndirrup 2.jpg[edit]

Shield bug. PentatomidaeNotafly (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Morelia (genus)[edit]

Hi Cygnis, I believe I owe you an explanation for the placement of the Morelia (genus) article. During a recent effort to organize all of the snake images into categories here at WikiMedia, I also went about creating matching articles for them whenever they were missing (which was usually the case). When I started creating those articles, I noticed that, when they were present, they were either located within the category for the matching taxon, or together with the category for the matching taxon in the category for the parent taxon. I asked around to see if there was a guideline for this, but there was none. Instead, I was told that the decision was usually a matter of taste (sigh). Therefore, I had to make a decision, which was to place the articles in the categories for their parent taxa. In my view this has a number of advantages:

  • It seems logical to treat an article and a category for a taxon the same way. The only difference is that the one can contain more articles and categories while the other cannot.
  • Treating them the same has the advantage of making it slightly easier to create new counterparts for them because, except for the gallery tags in the articles, they are basically the same -- you just copy and paste.
  • The greatest advantage by far, however, it that it makes maintenance much easier by providing better overviews. By that I mean that it becomes easier to check for new articles and categories that don't yet have matching counterparts. For example, take a look at Category:Natricinae. In it you can see that there are currently ten subcategories, but you don't have to drill any deeper to see that each one also has a matching article. However, due to the fact that everything is organized this way, you can also see that in those subcategories there are again just as many subcategories as articles, e.g. "(2 C, 2 P)" or " (5 C, 5 P)." This is probably because each of those subcategories also has a matching article; it's not a certainty, but it's usually the case. Again, you can see this without having to drill any deeper, which saves you an enormous amount of time when checking the entire collection. So, simply by checking these numbers, anyone can quickly locate newly created categories and articles, make any necessary corrections and then create matching counterparts for them.

This all seems wonderful, but for a while, there was one drawback to this scheme and it's the one I believe you are concerned with. Some people complained that, if they were viewing the contents of a category and the matching article was not located within it, they would not be able to find that article as easily. I solved this problem with the help of an administrator who was willing to add a new feature to the {{Taxonavigation}} template (see this discussion). This new feature makes it possible to navigate to a taxon's matching article or category simply by clicking on it's name in the taxonavigation template: if the name is not black, then it will taken you there. In other words, visitors no longer have to know where the matching article is located, because they can see that it exists from within the category overview and can always get there with a single click.
So what do you think? Does this sound reasonable? Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jaap, pardon the delay in responding. I'll try to be brief ... The categories are 'containers', arranged in a taxonomy. Their content are pages (galleries) and files (images, et al.).
  • We should not treat them 'the same way', the systematic arrangement should guide the user to the content in the simplest manner possible.
  • Whatever, but you can always find someone to run a bot if you ask nicely (and get a consensus).
  • As with most of your second point, consideration of our drudgery is redundant and unwarranted. We are here to make information available to users, not User:s, and your solution adds an unnecessary method of navigating to the content.
It is reasonable to expect that any content would be found in the category of the same name, as it is on commons and every other wikimedia site. A user clicks through them until they arrive at the desired rank, then selects whatever subcategory, page, or media file (actual content) we have bothered creating. I just copied the best practice in our part of Category: by looking at how some plant families were done. You may save yourself some labour if you browse around some other approaches. I think keeping it simple is best in a developing system, in consideration of our sister sites, and the additional click must first be interpreted from the template. S/he is bounced from the subcat route, to the page path, and then to a daughter of the mother of all templates - take a peek at Category:Eucalyptus ;-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Cygnis, Your response leaves me with a feeling of disappointment. It took me many months to organize the entire snake section here at Wikimedia and I did my best to offer you a detailed explanation for the way I did it. I was hoping that these efforts, along with the idea of consistency, would count for something with you, but I guess not. I have no response to your arguments because, as I said, around here that POV really boils down to a matter of taste. --Jwinius (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Not my intention, I'm interested in improvements. I hope you enjoyed doing it, as much as you do discussing it, your efforts contain a rule that I have questioned. Your reasoning hinges on your claim that it makes your 'articles', categories, and template easier to maintain and accords with your POV. Your 'no response' assertion is an inadequate rationale for deviating and complicating the access to content. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you and you'll have to give me a better set of reasons to go along with your idea. Other TOL editors work the same way and you can show some respect for my efforts. --Jwinius (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My approach is in accord with standard and best practice AFAIK, placing a page name in the eponymous category it is not mine. Show me the categories and editors that do this. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, look what I found! This is from Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life#Articles: "The article should be categorized in at least one higher taxon, typically a genus or family category, and have interwiki links to the corresponding species articles in the various WPs." So, it looks like I wasn't being so illogical and unconventional after all. It doesn't say that this is a policy, or even a guideline, but it certainly seems to be an accepted solution within the TOL project. --Jwinius (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You've found a line in that statement that may support your approach, 'in at least' mentioning the higher taxon, but that page is a hodgepodge of unilateral determinations and ultimately contradictory or redundant. You have not mentioned the statements that do not support your approach, I am loath to mention the category section.
I'm unconvinced of the logic of putting the genus in the family Why stop with that title, what if there is several? Please support your assertions, such as "seems to be an accepted solution", with examples. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, right: just dismiss the TOL project page. The fact is that the bit about categorizing articles "in at least one higher taxon" has been for over two years. I assume that there are plenty of editors who would agree with your approach, but this is a good indication that there are also ones who would agree with mine, particularly within the TOL project. Therefore, assuming both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, my choice to apply the same one TOL seems to favor is perfectly legitimate. So, the burden of proof is on you, and if you're still "unconvinced of the logic of putting the genus in the family", take your idea to the TOL talk page and discuss it there. Otherwise, please stop being disruptive. --Jwinius (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Where are the examples I requested? Why am I being disruptive, why can you not answer simple questions? Are you going to move them to 'common names' as instructed at what you have now chosen to batter me with? Can you really see no other guidance that contradicts your selection, or are you once again excluding facts to induce bloody debate? Your long winded and unsubstantiated assertions, punctuated with similar accusations, are juvenile and frustrating. I going to have a little break from you and yours, but I hope that you will answer some of the questions above - here or at TOL. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You talk about frustration. How do you think I feel? You don't like my hatnotes, you don't like the way I treat subspecies, you don't like how I work with taxonomic synonyms, you don't like my approach here to categorizing taxon articles, you don't like my user page and you don't like my arguments. In short, about all I can ever expect from you is criticism. Cygnis, I have no doubt that there are lots of other TOL editors who work according to your approach, but there is also nothing illegitimate about mine. --Jwinius (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Antaresia childreni[edit]

Cygnis, why do you want to dig this up again? I know you mean well, but if the organization I've worked so hard on to implement is still bugging you, it would be so much more polite if you discussed the matter first, rather than simply going ahead and making changes that you know will be viewed as contentious. --Jwinius (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've given my views, they are above. I cannot see how this is workable, and it is contrary to every thoughtful categorisation that I can find here or at the other place. I posed a number of pertinent questions, they remain unanswered. I have outlined how this would be confusing to the user, the reasons given for this novel implementation seem to rest with a false and prejudice assumption on the purpose of these categories. I may be wrong, it might be an improvement, but you have not given reasons beyond your personal convenience. What you mean is: discuss it with you again, face your misrepresentations, pull every every strategy known to those arguing from a fugitive position, and still have you fail to answer my simple questions, countenance my examples, and disrupt any chance at a consensus.
Jaap, I look at all the points in a discussion as objectively as possible, you appear to adopt a position and vociferously debate it. I consider debate and ad hominem remarks to be unproductive in content discussions, a view that is widely held in the community. A debater can elect to ignore the validity of their nominated opponent's position and shortcomings of their own views.
I can 'discuss' something with you until I'm blue in the face, you would rather lose a leg than cede a point to me, but will happily be convinced by others - so go ask them! Or simply provide answers to my questions and avoid wasting my time and theirs, as you have in the past.
Wikimedia is not service provided for you to construct a 'database' of your own design. They are not your categories. You irrevocably agreed to release your text contributions under the GFDL. You are impolite in your highly selective use of guidelines to 'win' debates, distorting them to retroactively support your view. You persistently adopt a view, then defend it tooth and nail. You place the onus on others to convince you of why your unconventional edits are wrong, and never consider or concede that you may have entrenched yourself in a position that is detrimental to the projects. Does portrait remind you of another user? Seriously mate, you need to take a walk into the room of mirrors. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "I've given my views, they are above." -- Well, I've done the same.
it would be so much more polite if you discussed the matter first - was what I responded to
  • "... it is contrary to every thoughtful categorization that I can find here or at the other place..." -- That's debateable. I figure the solution I selected is better and I'm not the only one to have arrived at this conclusion.
No it is isn't debatable, it is either what I found or I'm lying. Who else, where are they?
  • "I posed a number of pertinent questions, they remain unanswered." -- What questions? Do you mean the time you asked me to support my assertions with examples? You asked that question after I pointed out that COM:TOL even advises editors, here, to use the same method I've used. I believe this places the onus on you, not on me. I'm not saying this invalidates your preferred categorization method, but it certainly doesn't mean that mine is any less valid than yours.
It is a reasonable question, you have substituted a simple answer with a retroactive interpretation of TOL. I'm not saying this invalidates your preferred categorization ..." It is not my preference, that is an insult you pull out to gain leverage.
  • "I have outlined how this would be confusing to the user" -- And I have explained that the inconvenience is minimal. Apparently, COM:TOL agrees that this is the case. Remember, the links from the categories to their matching articles are now provided by the taxnav, further lessening the inconvenience you speak of.
I have stated that your version of taxnav greatly increases confusion, you have adopted a position that required elaborate work-arounds to implement.
  • ... the reasons given for this novel implementation..." -- It's not novel: in fact, COM:TOL describes it as the preferred categorization method for articles.
Until you provide examples, your 'suggests' cum 'preferred' categorisation method is AFAIK novel.
  • "... seem to rest with a false and prejudice assumption on the purpose of these categories.." -- That's your personal opinion.
Of course, and the opinion of others who question your approach.
  • "... I may be wrong, it might be an improvement, ..." -- So you admit that the status quo may not be such a bad idea after all?
Are you thick? No, I frequently consider whether I may be wrong. Give it a go and it might save a lot of people's time and energy.
  • "... but you have not given reasons beyond your personal convenience." -- Not true, since COM:TOL suggests this is the method to use. Besides, if it helps editors keep things organized, it's also good for visitors; maybe that's what the folks at COM:TOL were thinking.
So the "minor inconvenience" is now an improvement to users?
  • "... What you mean is: discuss it with you again, face your misrepresentations, pull every every strategy known to those arguing from a fugitive position,..." -- Your opinion of me seems to be as high as ever.
Getting lower all the time.
  • "... you appear to adopt a position and vociferously debate it." -- Well, maybe that's because I recently put in several months of work and would therefore prefer not to see the consistency compromised for no reason other than your fundamental disagreement with the way it's organized.
So what. I challenged another editor who said that galleries should have no category, he did a lot of this, it has since been undone. Both he and you made a fundemental departure from the consensus and practice.
  • "They are not your categories. You irrevocably agreed to release your text contributions under the GFDL..." -- Yes, but you have no right to disrupt matters here without good reason. So, far the only reasons you given me for wanting to do things differently boil down to your own POV.
Bulldust! You did something your own way, gave your convoluted explanation of how it suits you personally, then claimed it is done elsewhere without linking that example. You could have made this discussion much shorter (perhaps you are lonely) and you are one of my prime examples of an editor/owner creating a walled garden on our sites.
  • "You are impolite in your highly selective use of guidelines to 'win' debates, distorting them to retroactively support your view." -- It's not a crime to quote guidelines in your own defense, but if I'm guilty of distorting them -- of wikilawyering -- please explain and I will apologize unreservedly. If I'm not guilty of that, then please don't make such accusations.
This should not be a debate, and you wouldn't stand a chance if it was. Hey, look what I found! This is from Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life#Articles: "The article should be categorized in at least one higher taxon..." This was a retroactive interpretation of a guideline, selective in that you are not about to move them to common names. The phrase "at least" does not mean 'only'. The reasonable interpretation is to put it in a taxon's category, or a higher one if unavailable. This is the convention, and the current practice, your method of pushing 'articles' (a deprecated term for galleries) to the higher taxon cat will inevitably impact upon the whole taxonomy.
  • "You place the onus on others to convince you of why your unconventional edits are wrong, ... " -- That's usually because, as in this case, I've already put so much effort into something. It's so easy for you to criticize, but making the changes you suggest is now expensive.
Effort being your tendentious positions that are supported by a willingness to fill talk pages with unproductive blather until the other contributor gives up. This is expensive, in others time and your pointless efforts. It would be a much greater expense to change the rest of the TOL categories to your redundant navigation scheme, something outside of your scope and seemingly of no concern to you.
  • "... and never consider or concede that you may have entrenched yourself in a position that is detrimental to the projects."' -- That's not true. Over at WP:AAR, I recently made a consession that was HUGE from my point of view -- many times bigger than this. I did my best, but I could not deny the arguments that my opponents had to offer. On the other hand, if I rolled over in the face of any arguments, sometimes only to be polite, then I would not be fair to myself, or to my efforts, or to anyone else who might agree with my position.
You denied the views of others for a long time over ITIS and subspecies, your efforts are sometimes based on a fallacious and obstinate position. This is 'not fair' to other contributors, which is also outside of your scope and seemingly of no concern to you.
  • Cygnis, why don't you argue your case over at CT:TOL if you feel so strongly about it and see if you can arrange to have their advice removed and replaced with your own ideas?
... and the horse you rode in on. Suggested, preferred, and now advised; it is none of these things. It is not my ideas that I am promulgating, what you proffered as a tacit endorsement of your ideas is now being presented as contradiction of the fine work done in other parts of the taxonomy - by thousands of editors contributing innumerable hours. There are many things that should be changed at that guideline, I'm sure you would agree, but changing it to stop your misinterpretation of "at least" is not necessary. I doubt it would change your view, in any case, you adopted this position before even checking TOL.
Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cygnis, I'm impressed! Until now, I just thought you were all talk. Of, course, you had to get really angry first and you're 100% in breach of WP:POINT, not to mention ignoring COM:TOL. How about we ask for a third opinion to settle this matter? --Jwinius (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a compromise: would you be willing to accept two category tags per article: one for the matching category and one for the parent taxon? I should have thought of this earlier. This way, you would be happy because users would still find the matching articles within the same category, and I would be happy because I could still use the parenthesized values in the category overviews to keep things organized. Also, if you think this plan is acceptable, would you be willing to help me implement it? --Jwinius (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Volume 1[edit]

Check it out: --> [The Botanical Magazine, Volume 1] <-- Hesperian 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I will fiddle around with that. Was there much labour in converting the plates to png? Oh, and I think Curtis collected his small circulation mag (1787-89) and relaunched it in 1790. BDL has some annotations on the numbering curiosities, I should get around to clarifying this matter in the article. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you've got ImageMagick then all it takes is
convert plate1.jp2 plate1.png.
I will probably do the same for Volume 2 shortly.
Hesperian 05:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Another user has been converting V.1. & 2., I left them a note about djvu er ... stuff. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hesperian 03:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What a sweet thing you are, reverting all the work I did for File:The Botanical Magazine-Vol I Pl. 2.jpg! Let me know if there is something I can do to repay you for the thought! -- carol (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It is pretty simple: if you want to indulge in restoration, upload it to a new name. The other thing you could do is stop trolling. cygnis insignis 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That image is redundant to the vastly superior File:The Botanical Magazine, Plate 2 (Volume 1, 1787).png anyhow. Hesperian 02:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Discussion regarding the Categories "Fossil xxx" is occurring on Wp:ToL (here). As an editor of ToL images your input is requested in to gain a larger view of the communities opinion on how to handle the points raised. Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

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 bokmål | 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)‎ | +/−


Hello, Cygnis insignis!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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 10:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Life of William Blake pdfs[edit]

Hi, I noticed you uploaded three pdfs of Gilchrist's Pictor Ignotus. While the text is in the public domain, surely the Google logo that those pdfs contain is not...? Just wondering. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; it seems that the file of the logo itself is labeled as "non-copyrightable" because it consists only of typeface. Good luck with the Blake PDFs; myself I hope to have all of the files from the Blake archive uploaded here at some point, when I have time to do so. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Decorative element (All Quiet along the Potomac).png[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 08:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


File:Printer's device (poe).png[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Saw your self-revert. Intrigued by the possibility; what's up? Durova (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

alt text=this is
Right, that's the same image we were discussing yesterday. At my talk page you wrote "I wish I had found your data first, but I discovered soemthing along the way. It seems that what one could only speculate on turns out to be the simple explanation." Would you explain please? Today I telephoned the secretary for a professor of art history and left a message. He's expected in tomorrow. If there really is a simple explanation that doesn't take up his time, please share? Durova (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I did nothing unacceptable Durova, I discovered something was wrong with a feature article and acted accordingly; I see little advantage in discussing anything with you. Regarding the content that you are advertising, ask yourself these questions. Do you see a coherent image at right? You rotated another image from the work by 90 degrees to the the right—why did you do that? Has anyone beside you thought there is something significant about a page occurring upside down? cygnis insignis 20:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
We have two different reliable sources that contradict. So I am contacting a professor of art history who has published on this subject. You may assume I have considered the obvious. Is there anything specific you would like me to discuss with him? Please provide any additional sources you may have. Durova (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, could you ask him if my image needs another slight rotation? It still looks a little off, kinda annoying. cygnis insignis 21:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


File:La_Fontantaine_(Tilney_edition)_Cover_image.jpeg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:La_Fontantaine_(Tilney_edition)_Cover_image.jpeg 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Stifle (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


File:La_Fontantaine_(Tilney_edition)_frontispiece.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:La_Fontantaine_(Tilney_edition)_frontispiece.png 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Stifle (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Raven.[edit]

Reliable sources say that the orientation found in Durova's copy - the scan by the Library of Congress, from which this is reproduced - is wrong. As lithographs and text use different printing techniques, plates were usually printed separately, then inserted into the book, and it is not unknown for them to be misplaced. I personally own a book with a migratory illustration from around this period - someone decided to shove it in as a frontispiece, even though all the printed text described the image as being adjacent to a specific page. You have one instance, uncommented on by anyone but you, of it being put in upside down. The following reliable sources indicate this orientation likely reflects a printing error: The Bridgeman Art Library and the National Gallery of Australia both show it in its expected orientation, and Manet's Silence and the Poetics of Bouquets, by James Henry Rubin, says "In the fourth plate, shadow has itself taken on life, becoming the most prominent form. At its bottom it resembles that cast by the bird perched upon the bust, but then in much freer strokes it becomes a dense vapour rising and trailing into oblivion." No text can be found discussing Manet's bold decision to flip a plate upside-down, which one would expect when one checks books on Manet's work which describe this set in detail, and museums and art galleries.

File:Raven_Manet_E2_corrected.jpg should be used instead.


Furthermore, this is an incomplete set, leaving out the frontispiece and endpiece. Durova claimed it was a complete set in the en-wiki Featured Picture Candidacy, not mentioning these omissions.

Why should we wait for her to do more original research, when major museums and art galleries, published books, and every source BUT HER says she's wrong?

Also, you know how she's talking about it beoing a featured picture on en-wiki? Did she mention that it's currently in voting to be removed from featured picture status? Durova has a habit of suppressing all information that doesn't support her side, while talking her own position up to the moon, using attacks on her critics to silence them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thanks for the message. Nice quote from Rubin ;-) I think this has been a waste of time and, quite frankly, at first thought the whole thing was a prank. I hope others find more enjoyable ways to contribute, there is no end of interestings things to do.
The discussion here and at the user's talk page have been linked from w:en:Talk:The Raven; that is where I raised my concern on inclusion in a feature article so it seems sensible centralise to discussion there, if anything is left to be said.
I became interested in this work a couple of days ago, when I discovered a full scan was already available here and in use at a French site. (For those more interested in content than wiki:talk:pages, the full transcript is available for comment at s:en:Le Corbeau, The Raven.) I started uploading from Gallica, then realised there was a complete set in the categories. I saw the image in question, read the description, and made her aware of the solution. What happens next would require a table of diffs to explain, but in essence I think sources trump discussion. I got in the middle of a discussion concerning the intersection of two user's features, a gallery in an encyclopaedia article, but I did (of course) leave good references when requested. I glanced at the FP discussion, but hadn't seen any other. cygnis insignis 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just tired of her shouting down people, shutting down conversations [by deleting them or asking someone to close them] so she doesn't have to justify herself, complaining until people give up, and giving half-arsed excuses to delay things for months and months. Five months ago, she attacked and persecuted me for commenting the image was upside-down so much that I left Wikipedia for five months. Two weeks ago, when I returned and showed people the attack, she was complaining that it was original research for me to simply comment on the image being upside-down, and then segued into another attack, which I had to take to the en-wiki's arbcom before she admitted she had no evidence to back it - when I challenged her the first time, she just immediately began saying "this thread is off-topic now, would an administrator please close it" over and over, until one did (it being on an administrator's noticeboard). What she's doing here seems to be a continuation of the same sort of behaviour.
I honestly think her actions are hurting the cause of historic art. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden and Durova should act like adults, keep the furthest possible distance from each other, and not comment on each other or their work. Jon 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben Jonson[edit]

Hello: Do you intend to add content to this gallery?

  • If so, please do it, or at least add a note to that effect.
  • If not, please tag it {{speedy delete}}

Thanks,. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 12:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A potential gallery I suppose!? if it becomes one then the incoming link, from an external site, will be even better. I think I prefer a third option, leave it as a redirect ... do you see a problem with that? cygnis insignis 19:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
... and I suppose I should look first, I fixed the page. cygnis insignis 19:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. When you start a gallery, please be sure to either add images or add a note that you're going to add images soon. Otherwise a new page patroller (like me) will either hang a {{speedy delete}} on it or ask the same question I did above. Thanks, 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Jim, but I think you may have misunderstood what happened; I wasn't trying to start a gallery. I intended to add #REDIRECT [[:Category:Ben Jonson]], clicking Ben Jonson shows you the category. cygnis insignis 07:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Redirects to a category are a useful convenience. But the same thing applies -- it looks like an empty gallery until you put the #REDIRECT [[Category:Ben Jonson]] in it, and empty galleries will get {{speedy delete | out of scope}}. Not a big deal. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 10:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Shahi's images[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother you, but User:Iamsaa and claims that he has created these images and owns it, whereas I have created these images. I was wondering, what can be done about that? - MFI Media/Correspond 20:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Page 231 fig 1920, inset illustration. Folk-Lore, vol. 14.png[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

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

Filemover[edit]

Not sure why it had never been previously assigned to you. Done now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that. cygnis insignis 09:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)