User talk:FunkMonk/Archives/2012

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tip: Categorizing images

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, FunkMonk/Archives!

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

new version of suuwassea picture

Hello, I have uploaded a new version of my Suuwassea pic on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiseb/6089399852/ : the mention "DoubleTake" that appeared on the bottom of the pic has been removed, and I added some elements on the left hand side of the picture. If you think like this version better than the old one (here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Suuwassea.jpg ) please feel free to replace it on wikimedia commons. Best regards and happy new year, Sébastien Bertrand

Nice, thanks! I have replaced the picture. I have also uploaded your Saurolophus photo, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosaurolophus#Paleobiology FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I commend you for your balance in being willing to nominate for deletion images you have uploaded, even if only a transfer from WP, when you realise the copyright claims are doubtful. Rwendland (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I've learned a lot about copyright through my years here, and some of my early copyright rationales were pretty embarrassing... FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations for your barnstar! DenesFeri (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Psittacula exsul Jossigny.jpg

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 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rodrigues Starling

Oh, wow! NICE WORK! Very much appreciated! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Your talk-page description and request for a restoration was a pretty good motivator, I got an instant urge to draw the bird, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Easter

I wish you Happy Easter! DenesFeri (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And same to you! FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Palestine 1976.ogv

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Palestine 1976.ogv 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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

russavia (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Marasuchus

You can go ahead and replace it for now... I'm having an irritating foible with the images I uploaded which involves them being listed under the incorrect license at Deviantart by the artists, even though the artists themselves gave me explicit permission to use them. Once I get it straightened out I'll re-upload most the images, but you're welcomed to update your own Marasuchus for the article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do that (it's kind of rough also, will fix that), back when I drew it I used a skeletal that indicated it had scutes along its back (by Gregory S. Paul I believe), but perhaps that was just an assumption? FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Query

Hi, I have a query. Could I request an image for deletion if the image was taken and uploaded by me, but I no longer wish to keep it here? --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, author requests are taken into consideration. Just nominate it for deletion and say why. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Torosaurus BW.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Torosaurus BW.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Arrhinoceratops BW.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Arrhinoceratops BW.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Futalognkosaurus BW.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Futalognkosaurus BW.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Auroraceratops BW.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Auroraceratops BW.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Argentinosaurus BW.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Argentinosaurus BW.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Panthera leo cf fossilis - radius - Ambrona.JPG

Hello, I've reverted your categorization of the image as "Unidentified fossils of Mammalia" because it is identified: the bone is a radius of Panthera leo cf. fossilis. The cf. is a minor taxonomic question. Regards, --PePeEfe (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no problem, I must have overlooked the fossilis part, thought it was only identified down to species, not subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Suzhousaurus

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Suzhousaurus has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

84.61.173.236 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Neanderthal reconstitution centre courrier annecy 2.jpg

You deleted my photo. Could you explain me why ? I don't understand. Christophe cagé (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I simply pointed out that it infringes French copyright law[1], and another admin went and deleted it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
.
.
??. I'm french, and i'm a lawyer. The law exist, but it exist 2 reasons why you can see a huge number of photographies of french monument or panomarama, or house, or..... on commons : it is very clear that nobody use it today (it exist a law which forbid pants for women. And you know what ? Nobody is in jail). And it is necessary that the owner of the monument / panorama / ... ask for is "right". And it is nos the case.
If you consider that your interpretation is good, you can ask for the deletion :
and in fact all french photos (you have in general a house, or a car, or anything else which is, in theory, under this law).
Why didn't you ask for delation of all these photos ? I don't understand ? Christophe cagé (talk)
Those buildings are in the "public domain" so to speak, they were made so long ago that no one owns the copyright to their design. What's relevant is if the author died moree than 70 years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

rv

Sorry for that blindly reversion, I was in angry mood. --Z 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, ok. What was the point? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Mumia graffiti.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Mumia graffiti.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Courcelles 03:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Notiomystis cincta cincta.jpg

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 05:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(Undo, this is overcategorisation of the worst kind. There is oly one genus.)

Hello,
About your comment here:
You will certainly agree that everyone is trying to work on the sourcing of wikipedia's informations.
That is: we are trying to prove the information we provide.
Apterygidae is monotypic, but it does not mean we should not provide our sources.
{{Category redirect}} does not mean that we cannot have a sentence + links to explain the redirect.
PS: the term "worst" is not very good for a cooperativ site. You should reread WikiLove and improve your communications skills. Administrator should give the good example.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but there was nothing personal involved, since I did not even know who had created the categories, it was more the sheer frustration over having to go through a maze of categories to find anything deeply nested within them. So no hard feelings to you! FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, cool. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kelenken artists impression.jpg

hello, i see you have nominated both of my images for deletion. One of those is nominated "Permission does not specifically release it for any commercial use". Could you explain that any further? The author has stated to me that he is satisfied with an entry on commons. The second one is nominated because: "Several other images on the site is artwork and photos not created by Darryl Rehr, no evidence he took ths picture". I would really like you to explain that any further before i can answer to this. Amphicoelias (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Commons needs you to obtain specific licenses for images, not just to "release them", simply asking them if you can use the image on Wikipedia is misleading, that doe snot mean they have agreed to release the image into the public domain. The images will have to be used by anyone, not just Wikipedia. As for the ther image, the site wit the skull has many images, including artwork and screenshots from a computer programme, which are not made by the person who owns the website. Therefore, he does not own the right to thos ephotos, so he can't release them. I doubt he personally took that publicity photo of the skull, since it was made for a magazine press release, not for the show he's involved in. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
in an e-mail to me:
"Lukas -
I personally took this photo, therefore I own the copyright.
DR"
unless you don't believe me i think that issue is solved.
Amphicoelias (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You still need to go through the OTRS process: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm only native on wikipedia, not on commons. Could you as a commons native explain to me what i need to do in these cases? Amphicoelias (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You ask the owner to choose a specific free license, and then you forward your mails to the otrs mail. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

skeletons and fossils

Hi FunkMonk,

Could you please identify this skeletons and fossils?

Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the two first are a domestic pig (not wild boar, due to short skull) and cow (not an Aurochs, due to the gracile build), they seem to be recent due to the colour of the bones. I'll see what I can do for the others... FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OAU! Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for the uploads, keep them coming! FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems like not even the museum can identify the Myliobatis to species, perhaps it is not complete enough: http://muticaria.blogspot.dk/2010/12/scales-in-stone.html FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, than. Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

Greetings, I'm an admin in Arabic Wikipedia, my contributions in commons were just uploading files and adding introwikis, as well as Arabic descriptions of pictures, places, animal names..etc, as for my tasks on Arabic Wikipedia, i'm usually the person who flags articles with the FA star or GA mark, as well as photographs, and that's what i want to ask about. I have noticed that any picture we mark as a Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia is not shown on any other versions, or in commons, to be featured, for example this file, it is chosen as a featured photo on ar wiki, but it just shows that its featured on the German, English, Persian, Croatian, and Turkish Wikipedias.

I tried to add that its featured on ar wiki manually, but nothing changed. So what should i do, or is it an admin's job, or a bot to flag it? i have recently created this category, it holds all the featured photos on ar wiki. Can you guide me on how to mark these photos, or take the right steps if its up to an admin. Thank you :-)--Bassem (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think a new template has to be created. I'll take a look at some featured files and get back to you when I know more. FunkMonk (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In this image that was featured on the Turkish Wiki, I can see a bot added the template: [2] I will ask at the techical help desk. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, Thank you, i'll wait your answer--Bassem (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't received an answer yet, but you can follow the thread here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i have been told :-) thank you very much for your efforts. best regards--باسم (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

HELP

Hi I uploaded some pictures to commons but I write wrong titles and descriptions, Then I ask someone to correct. If you can correct what I uploaded like description in the link and modefy the titles

AR:مستخدم:Rami radwan/مسودة Rami radwan (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, are they all wrong, or just some? Can you list the ones you want changed, and say what you want them changed to? FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
all are wrong exept banda,zebra and Concord. If you can change the titles according to the english namr in description, and add the description as wrote in the link. best regrads Rami radwan (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It is very easy to get them renamed actually, just add {{rename media}} to the file and write the new name in it, then they will all be renamed afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Watermarks

Hello. Please stop adding this file to "images with watermarks". That is not a watermark by any stretch of the imagination, it is part of an historical illustration of a bird, and should never be removed from there. If you like images with captions categorized, then create that category, but don't add it to the maintenance categories since that is not a problem. I don't know where you have got that weird idea that "Images should not have captions on them", but that is simply not true.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, the caption category redirects to watermark. Images should not contain unreadable text (or any text that could be moved to the description for that matter), see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Media_for_cleanupFunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, forget about the caption, that is not a caption, it's integral part of the file. It shall never be removed from there, or changed by "readable text". You are misunderstanding that point. One thing is me or you writing over an image, another is the text being part of the original image. In that case you shall never remove it or erase it. Will you remove Caravaggio signature, and change it for "readable text"? With all due respect, that's imbecile. (I doubt you would ever do that, that's only to illustrate the point)--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to calm down and watch your language (an admin should know how to behave). There is no signature there, only typewriter text which could easily be duplicated to the description (if it is even readable), if it isn't there already. If you're so desperate to keep the file as it is, add the {{Original}} template, then we can perhaps upload a cleaned up file separately. In any case, nothing is lost from cropping it out, as it i barely readable anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a plate, image and text, that is *not* "media for cleanup". Any "cleanup" done there will be reverted, and if the user insists in overwriting the file with a "cleaned up" version, he or she will be blocked. Those are our rules. Queuing the file for clean up, as you are doing, is equally wrong, so stop doing it already. This is the last time I warn you. If you have any doubts about this proceeding, you have a lot of venues to complaint, besides subjecting the file to potential damage as you are doing.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This is all a matter of opinion, and policy seems to favour my view, so I would think twice about taking such extreme and childish measures. Nope, I won't be blocked, since hundreds of such captioned images have been cropped already by other users. It is simply not an issue.You can go ahead and get dozens of other admins blocked for it if you want. Some policy quotes: "Some images contain descriptions or captions in a specific script or language. As far as possible any descriptive text (captions, annotations, legends) should be within the file description page, not in the image itself.", "Pictures that need to be retouched, trimmed and scaled: These include images with captions that are too small to read or photos that contain irrelevant surroundings." FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What part do you fail to understand that it is not "irrelevant surroundings"? And this is not a "matter of opinion". It's an historical document, for Heavens sake. I doubt people are going around destroying plates as you seem to believe, but if I ever come across such kind of damage on historical documents here, it will be reverted on the spot.
What part of "unreadable = useless" do you not understand? FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The part that makes all Caravaggios useless because they have a "unreadable" signature there. Good grief...--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no signature on the image in question (do you even know what the word means?[4]), only typewriter written credits. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Its 19th century "typewriter written credits", it's part of the original plate. Please try to understand the importance of the original documentation. Those plates were issued that way, and should be kept that way here, or else the value of the file would be much diminished.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It has no value when illustrating an article about a bird (since whatever info present should already be in the captions of the respective articles). Therefore it is obsolete, and you should add the "original" template, so a cropped version could be uploaded separately for use. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
that is not "a bird", its a plate from Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London with a zoological illustration of a bird. It often has outdated or incorrect nomenclature, which is nonetheless important in historical terms. Cropping that would destitute the file of all context and greatly diminish it's value.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Then badabing, you can add the damn "original" template, upload a cleaned up version with the same text in the file description, and we'll all be happy. Images with outdated text are misleading, therefore obsolete. Let's keep the discussion at the village pump. I don't like your tone, so let's at least expose it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That is not a case for {{original}}, it's a plate, and it's not obsolete. it's supposed to be exactly that way. Please don't mess with what you do not understand, or else you'll certainly end up damaging something. Read Commons:Overwriting_existing_files as well, which is a policy we use here since long, and which is being refined now.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You really seem to have gotten your knickers in a twist over this. Of course I understand the issue, we just have differing views, so once again, calm down, and don't be so damn patronising. I'll make an enquiry at the village pump or something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There's already an inquiry opened up at VP over your proceedings on this file, that's how I knew about that. Of course I'm mad at your behaviour, I've uploaded hundreds of plates of botany, and i don't want you or anybody else nowhere near them "cropping" and doing other destruction and mischief to the originals. The original plates, either from a book or sold alone, should never be messed up with. If you want something else, then go ahead and upload it under a new file name, but that's your work and responsibility, not of the people who upload the files. And it's not a "problem" with the files, plates are supposed to look exactly that way.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, then it's good you didn't notify me of the enquiry before starting a discussion here, no? Here's my section: [5] And yet again, what you whine about is what the "original" template is for. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you even red what I wrote? The "original" template is not for such cases. It says "this file is an original and may be obsolete for general use, but is kept for historical or archival use.". This is not true about plates which are supposed to be used integrally. If you want something else, then go ahead and make your derivative, but leave those plates alone. And it is not my responsibility to warn you about VP sections about you, unless I was the OP, which I am not. Nevertheless, I DID warn you, so yes, that's good. Thanks.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Such captions are redundant and annoying in biology articles that focus on animal species, where the info is already present in the caption. Therefore they are obsolete. See the extinct birds plates for an example.[6] FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
(thrice conflicted, not again!) I am sorry to see so much acrimony. I only felt that the guidelines about defining and dealing with watermarks as well as the other proposed guidelines about overwriting did not seem to read right. Have also clarified that I was in no way complaining about it and would be fine if the caption and the plate number are removed while leaving the lithgrapher and delineator inscriptions alone (a fine point that someone following the tag instructions might not understand). Shyamal (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, apart from the aggressive language, it's good that the issue can be discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sigh - Stubbornness is a sin. But since it's an harmless tag, whatever, have your way on that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh, a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The pot didn't added his thing to the picture at all costs, even more such a useless and misleading tag. But since it's mostly harmless to the file, the kettle can have it's way there. For now.(let's see where the VP thread goes to) :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 15:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk! I'm sorry if I sounded blunt or patronizing, but I, truly in good faith, mistook you for a newbie who was unwittingly queuing those files for an action that would damage them. Only a while ago I realized you were an old user, and a fellow administrator to boot. I'm certain we will find an agreement on this. I apologize for those warnings and threats, but I really mistook you for a stubborn newbie. Cheers, --- Darwin Ahoy! 19:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Overlooking Ghajar.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Overlooking Ghajar.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyracotheriinae

Hello my friend,
About this change on Hyracotheriinae, you forgot to provide your source. You also forgot to change the {{Taxonavigation}}.
I added a {{Taxoconflict}} to precise that there is a conflict of classification beween your source and Wikispecies & TPDB which (still?) place this subfamily under Equidae.
Just replace X by your source if it is managed by {{Taxasource}} or replace X by |ref2=<DescriptionOfYourSource>.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, see this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00005.x/abstract The British type species of Hyracotherium itself is not an equid, but the rest of the species are, so they have been split off. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
Sorry I dont have an account on onlinelibrary.wiley.com
So this paper splits Hyracotheriinae in 2. The first containing Hyracotherium would be under Palaeotheriidae, the rest would still be under Equidae ?
Do you know the names of the 2 parts ? Or maybee Hyracotherium is put directly under Palaeotheriidae and the rest is still under Hyracotheriinae?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The equid part is split into several genera and species, some are moved into existing ones, others are given entirely new names. They are only referred to as "equids". Hyracotheriinae isn't actually mentioned in the paper, so it seems Hyracotherium is directly under Palaeotheriidae. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems Wikispecies should be updated too. A little speculation on the ramifications: [7] FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I see only one obvious modification: move Hyracotherium out of Hyracotheriinae direcly under Palaeotheriidae (already accepted by en.wikipedia)
As for Hyracotheriinae (still accepted by ITIS & Wikispecies & TPDB and referenced but not described by en.wikipedia) we should leave it under Equidae with a description telling that Hyracotherium has been moved to Palaeotheriidae.
As for wikispecies, I leave it to you ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Heheh, and I leave it to Kevmin... FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism in Motd description

Hi FunkMonk, please take a look here. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please

Hello,
Could you use:


By the way, Rhea should not be put in Struthioniformes (Like here) as it is placed in Rheiformes.
I also think you were too quick here as the genus has 2 species.
Also invoking religion (Like here) is not a good idea.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice, haven't seen that before. As for Rheiformes, that is monotypic too, so Rhea genus cat should be placed under paleognathae. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what I thought ;-) Liné1 (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ugh...

Please remove the deletion tags for the youtube video screen shots(clearly states "Creative Commons Attribution license" in the description section under the videos, click "show more") and the Iran-Iraq war images (released under GDFL, which is on the bottom of the webpage). --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it doesn't specify whether it is a non-commercial CC license or not. That's needed. Also, some of the videos are private, so can't be seen. As for the Iraq Iran image, only the photographer would be able to release it under such a license, and I doubt he has anything to do with that website. But I'll make it a DR instead. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

ENOUGH!!!!

The Youtube creative commons license is "CC-BY" [8], aka this: [9]. Remove the deletion tags for the Youtube videos now! --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. There are many non-commercial CC-BY licenses.[10][11][12] There is no indication those on Youtube were the free ones. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Did it ever cross your mind that if the Youtube license doesn't say non-commercial, then it's not non-commercial?--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It crossed my mind that Commons uses the precautionary principle.[13] FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's some more evidence: [14]. "As part of the Creative Commons launch on YouTube, you'll also be able to mark any or all of your videos with the Creative Commons CC BY license that lets others share and remix your work, so long as they give you credit." The quote from Youtube officials clearly states that the license is this one: [15], via the link it provided. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nice, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the videos is clearly not the work of the uploader (note watermark and music indicating it is from a TV channel), and the other video is inaccessible at the moment, so there is no way to verify that the uploader is the author. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the videos by YouTube user Pravdavoin: [File:Syrian Army in Aleppo.PNG], [File:Army Soldier helping civilian.PNG], [File:Syrian Army in Aleppo.PNG]. However, the rest is debatable. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the currently inaccessible video was released under the CC-BY license when I retrieved the screenshot.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, debatable, hence the deletion request where it can be debated. And just in case you feel stalked or that this is somehow a political thing, nope; I'm an admin here and have to remove copyright violations on sight, I've requested tonnes of images for deletion that I thought were copyright violations, including images of pro regime rallies and whatever. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought an admin would've done some research [16] before accusing all YouTube videos of being licensed under non-commercial. There is no strong reason to delete these: [File:Shabiha in Aleppo.PNG], [File:Syrian Army in Damascus.PNG], [File:Operation Tariq al-Qods.jpg]. All are published under a free license, no evidence of "stolen material". Since I'm busy and don't have time to discuss on the dozen or so nomination pages you added, I'll just say you can delete the rest if you want, but the 3 I mentioned MUST stay. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. The Hizbollah and Palestinian images needs to stay until there's a consensus. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The two logos are clear cases though, as I mentioned elsewhere, if Idraw a picture of Mickey Mouse, I won't be able to use the image commercially, as Disney owns the likeness. Same with such logos. And reuploading videos to Youtube others have created happens all the time, by the way. In this case, the uploader has many unrelated videos, filmed all sorts of places, which indicates he didn't film them himself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dansk video

Är du dansk? Varför finns det så få videos från Danmark? Se min statistik på Category talk:Videos by country. --LA2 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, hvad tæller? Jeg har en video af en emu i en dansk zoo[17], for eksempel... Jeg tror generelt bare ikke der er så mange danskere på Wikipedia og endnu færre på Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

About the french Mammuth...

Hi,

May be I'm wrong, but a prehistoric animal (or man) reconstitution isn't, I think, an art work (sculpture) from an unique artist, but a scientific artefact by a museologic team, as Fichier:Bałtów Park Jurajski 001.jpg on [18]...

Friendly, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A sculpture is a sculpture, whether it was made by a team or an individual, based on science, imagination, or both. Sculptures are art per definition. And reconstructions of extinct animals always require a lot of imagination, since only incomplete specimens are known. The sculpture in Poland is fine, since there is "freedom of panorama" there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Woolly mammoth.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Woolly mammoth.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

142.32.208.235 19:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Princesse Teriivaetua.jpg

Hi. Could you help me straighten and crop File:Princesse Teriivaetua.jpg?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, also fixed the contrast. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you leave the contrast undone?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, could you help me straighten and crop File:Elizabeth Kekaaniau Pratt.jpg keeping the black border. Upload the first one with black borders over the current file and then uploading a second time without the black borders; no derivative files please. No need at all for any touch up or cleaning. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why keep the borders? Such are generally advised against per Commons policy.[19] FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! DenesFeri (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and same to you! What are we doing here on Christmas day? Hahah. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Greetings, I think. :) DenesFeri (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Please help translate

Hello FunkMonk/Archives, thanks for helping to translate the 2012 Picture of the Year contest. We still need help translating the contest interface and messages, along with reviewing existing translations. This page contains information about which pages need to be translated (please remember to take a look at all three tables on that page). Your help is really appreciated and helps make the premier competition on the world's largest collection of over 15 million freely licensed files possible.


This message was delivered by WillieBot (talk) (an approved bot) at 22:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC) because you participated in the 2012 POTY preparation. Click here to opt out.