User talk:Natubico

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Natubico!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

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, Natubico!

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 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Leaf buds in spring.JPG[edit]

This is Cornus mas; I've renamed the file to File:Cornus mas flowers by Natubico.JPG. It would help with identifying your other photos if you could add locations to them, please! - MPF (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Bssn d'Argenteuil by Gustave Cailleboitte 1882.jpg[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 03:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rotterdam_canals[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Rotterdam_canals 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 | +/−

ErickAgain 09:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Request[edit]

You have made changes to a number of images where you changed a category to Category:Black and white pictures Delft buildings in 20th century. This category does not give a description of the content of the image, only the appearance, and in this way does not add anything substantial that may be useful as a category. It is as if you would categorize all coloured images as such. I don't find this very helpful. I hope you understand. --VanBuren (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with VanBuren on this. There are thousands of black and white images from Delft and other cities in the Netherlands uploaded as a part of the RCE upload. I guess 400.000 in total. I think these kinds of categorisations aren't really usefull, if you want black and white images from Delft simply look in the Buildings in Delft category, there are loads of them, and they are very easy to spot. Another thing is that I expect this category wont even nearly get all black and white images in it. Currently the Amsterdam category holds 7 images, although I believe there are over 7000 black and white 20th century images from Amsterdam. A category with 0.1% of the relevant images is not that useful. I'm not sure but I think another problem is that VanBuren was working on cleaning out the Delft category, now that these images are removed from the Delft category they're not anymore in his working area. VanBuren is moving mountains in the Delft category, categorising thousands of images up to the correct building. This might take some time but I guess some space to work over there for him will give us a great categorised tree of building images from Delft. Basvb (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Two documents related to Delft[edit]

Hi Natubico. I noticed that you removed two documents from the category Delft, see: ([1]) and [2]. On close examination it appears that the information is related to the profile of waterways in and around Delft, specifically as it says on the one document: "De Diepte van de Schie". You can look at these documents in greater detail here: [3] and [4]. I have placed them in a separate category. I hope this clarifies this. --VanBuren (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century[edit]

Hoi Natubico, bedankt voor het helpen met de categorisatie, maar ik ben bang dat je een beetje verkeerd bezig bent. Categorisatie is er om foto's vindbaar te maken. Met een categorie als Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century ben je de foto's alleen maar aan het verstoppen. Je moet heel erg opletten met doorsnedes. Over het algemeen is kom je in ongewenst gebied als je meer dan 2 onderwerpen met elkaar aan het combineren bent. In dit geval zijn het er 4 (Category:Black and white, Category:Amsterdam, Category:Buildings en Category:20th century). Multichill (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Foto's worden onvindbaar wanneer ze (alvorens verder gecategoriseerd te worden) verdwijnen onder 'n stortvloed van duizenden archieffoto's van 'n bepaald afwijkend type.
Het zou bijzonder op prijs gesteld worden, wanneer degenen die deze duizenden (overigens in de meeste gevallen best interessante) foto's tot nu toe enigszins plompverloren in de hoofdcategorie van de desbetreffende plaats 'neerplempen', deze meteen al in een aparte (zo duidelijk mogelijk omschreven) categorie zouden inbrengen, zodat de hedendaagse foto's die al die andere bijdragers in de hoofdcategorie plaatsen, weer tevoorschijn komen en zo mogelijk door anderen verder gesubcategoriseerd kunnen worden.
Hopelijk kunnen de uwerzijds ingebrachte archieffoto's alsnog met 'n robot naar de Category:(Black and white) pictures of Amsterdam buildings in the 20th century overgebracht worden, vanwaaruit met name ook uzelf ze waar nodig verder kunt categoriseren.
Dat zou anderen 'n gigantische berg werk besparen.
B.v.d.,
Vr.gr.,
Natubico (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories with commercial content[edit]

I noticed you recategorized some of the contributions of this user [5]. You may not have noticed that the pictures contributed by this user contains commercial text such as a website address in a watermark. It is not wikipedia policy to provide a platform for organisations to market their acitivities. I have removed all categories related to Delft. In the mean time I will try to find out if this company is willing to upload these pictures without a watermark. --VanBuren (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Delft park in autumn.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Delft park in autumn.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Fungi in forest.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Fungi in forest.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)‎ | +/−

Convallaria majalis (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

file rename[edit]

no. how about you create a category for nevada wildflowers and put it and similar files in there? Famartin (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also a possibility.
But in itself the relevant info should be added under "description" and not in the filename; this among others because otherwise the image takes in a lot more place on the page than necessary).
Natubico (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Categories are a dime a dozen. I don't see any reason to not create a new category if you desire an "easy" way of finding something. It could easily be nested within the categories Flora of Nevada and Wild flowers. However, if you want such a category, you'll have to make it. I don't see an overwhelming need (nor do I wish to spend time doing it). BTW, there are PLENTY of photos which could go into such a category. FAR FAR more than just 4. You should look around some more, you'll find them. Famartin (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as your comment about relevant info location: It falls under "Criteria to decline: Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." on the Wikimedia file renaming page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming Famartin (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Onion flower.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Onion flower.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)‎ | +/−

Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)