User talk:Notafly/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KarlCieslukSalmon.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jkadavoor 03:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LisburnCastleGardens.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KKESoroniRodos.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Cropped version seems good. I think the falling lines are adequate for this picture. -- Renardo la vulpo 21:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LisburnCathedralGrave (13).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 17:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RailwayStreetLisburnRear 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 19:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LisburnCathedralGrave (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 18:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ParkvilleCU.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, I really like this one. W.carter 21:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cloud society

Clouds from a room with a view

I became inspired by what you told me about the cloud societies, so yesterday afternoon I set up a camera on a tripod in my office window and within an hour and a half I had a series of beautiful cloud pictures. Thanks! :) The four best are hopefully on their way to QI now. This one is my favorite. Best, CJ aka w.carter-Talk 19:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BagniDiLucca (37).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 20:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LuccaWallsDetail.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 13:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LaetitiaPortugal.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Vengolis 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SilvesAlgarve (11).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, nice detail! --W.carter 19:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SilvesAlgarve (10).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 14:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LuccaItaly2015 (25).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Better now, not perfect, but Ok. --Hubertl 20:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not just clouds

Sun dog with reflection over Brofjorden

Hi Robert, I left work late today and the weather was warm and calm so I thought I'd take a little trip down to the fjord to see if I could catch some nice clouds or reflections of the sunset. Little did I expect this! I will work on fixing and uploading a series tomorrow, I just wanted to show you this. Kind regards CJ aka cart-Talk 22:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful CJ. I see the event was shortlived. I have noticed that at sunrise and sunset events move fast.The seconds count.I have never seen a sun dog but I did see the "Vision of the Fairy Morgana" Wikipedia:Fata Morgana (mirage) at Reggio Calabria many years ago. Very best regards Robert. aka Notafly (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Never seen one of those, it must have been eerie. This is the third time I've seen sun dog(s), but never as spectacular as this and this is the first I managed to take a photo of. You bet it was short, don't think I have ever gone through so many settings so fast on my camera hoping that some would turn out ok. Best, cart-Talk 12:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SantaCasaMisericordiaAlvor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good now! --Hubertl 10:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AlvorAlgarveMay2016 (4).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Weak  Support Sharpness in the edges could be better. DoF small. IMO acceptable. --XRay 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Your gallery page Quality Photographs by Notafly

Hello, Notafly. I noticed that you have the following code on Quality Photographs by Notafly: {{User category|Notafly}}. That template is for use on category pages, not gallery pages. Would you please remove it from your gallery page? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lucca2015 (6).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The IQ is OK but I find it really disturbing that the inscription is cut. Could you crop the column just above the inscription, please? --Basotxerri 14:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Thankyou.Done Notafly 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC) OK now! Good quality. --Basotxerri 18:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Barbour Mill

Hello Notafly,

having bad weather here in the Basque Country, I have spent some minutes on fixing your image. Your fix was on the right track but the left and especially the was still leaning a bit in. I have noted that the image was slightly tilted which is harder to correct. The bad thing is that by fixing all these, the image gets smaller and this is why there's no space left between the left wall and image border. Someone could consider this a "bad crop". I think its still acceptable, though. Furthermore, I've cropped out a bit of the foreground that seemed to me to be too dominating. You see the difference in brightness?

If you like these changes, I'll ask someone to promote it, and if not you can revert it.

Best regards,

--Basotxerri (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AlvorMay2016 (11).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Tilted --Moroder 07:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC) thanks.fixed? Notafly 19:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)  Comment Now you cropped off the bottom of the street sign and the top right and bottom left corners need to be fixed but overall I'm very unhappy with the composition of the image and I doubt it is QI anyway --Moroder 09:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)  Comment New adjusted and cropped version uploaded, description improved and better cats added. W.carter 14:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC) OK for me now. --Basotxerri 16:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ChristchurchLisburnMemorialStone.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 23:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LisburnCathedralMemorial.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 23:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BarbourMillSeptember2015Day2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I'm sorry, this image needs a perspective correction. Can you see that the left and the right side are leaning in? The problem is that by fixing the perspective the image will get smaller and the left wall of the building is already near to the border. So try and let's see. Ah, the image would get better if you brightened the shadows a bit. --Basotxerri 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Thankyou. I did perspective correction already.No more can be done as you say Notafly 18:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks Basotxerri for making the corrections, that "gap" did not need to be there, much cleaner now. QI. W.carter 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DroughtHildenCanal.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Please check your image. There a re magenta CAs and IMO it's leaning out. --XRay 13:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the info. I am not sure of fixing this in Lightroom (new to me} Notafly 18:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)  Comment Please have a look to the tutorials everywhere in the WWW. --XRay 07:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Seeking advice. This done with auto.Thankyou for your patience Notafly 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC) *  Comment sorry, XRay, but in the actual version I can´t see CAs. There is unsharpness in the upper corners, but that is due to the wide angle. I would promote it. --Hubertl 07:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)  Support With Hubertl's advice ;-) and another check IMO the image is OK. May there are minor CAs at the left, but it's OK now. --XRay 16:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MegalithicMonumentAlcalarTechnology.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 21:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LifeboatAlvorPortugal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 20:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CartPortugal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Categorization could be improved. --XRay 07:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MegalithicMonumentAlcalarPortal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK for me. --Hubertl 13:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DeltaAlvor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LighthouseAlvor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MegalithicMonumentAlcalar.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

image info

Hello, this photo was taken by you? The image risks to be deleted, as it lacks source and author... could you provide them? (if you are the author it is sufficient to add the template {{own}} ). Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Cavarrone, the reason the file appeared to have no info was because of a typo in the code. If you had opened the file in the editing window, you would have seen this. This sort of thing happens from time to time since the code is so sensitive, a single character wrong and the info is not shown. When you see a file that looks like this, just open it and see what it looks like in the code, most of the time all the info is there. This saves a lot of time for everyone. I have corrected the typo now. best, cart-Talk 15:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Sorry for having missed the code error. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen...

... that at the moment your venetian blinds photo (and my windows) are used as examples of "Composition" on the front page of Quality images? See: Commons:Quality images#Composition. :) --cart-Talk 09:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Some holiday joy

Since 1959, it is a Swedish tradition to (at 3 pm) watch Donald Duck and other Disney cartoons on TV. The most appreciated part is about Donald as bird photographer in Clown of the Jungle. I think most users at FPC can relate to the frustrated Donald (especially the parrot scene), which is why I'm sharing it with you. Happy Holiday! --cart-Talk 14:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AlvorNatureReserveOctober2015 (45).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Bottom crop could be better, but a QI IMHO anyway. --C messier 11:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Edward_Donovan:Insects_of_India

Category:Edward_Donovan:Insects_of_India 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!

Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

File:CleobulusOfLindos.JPG

File:CleobulusOfLindos.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

~~ ∫_uℂρЭ ℝ0υĜe 22:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

claspers of flies

Hallo Notafly, I just want to improve the lemma Aedeagus in German Wikipedia. Therefore I also consulted the Manual of Nearctic Diptera of McAlpine e.a. I meditate about the word parameres. What do you think, or what is the latest position adopted by dipterologists: Are the (outer) claspers -podites as claimes f. i. Matsuda or are they derived from the parameres (outer phalomeres) as claimes f. i. Snodgrass. As for me, I have an opinion - I will tell you, when I got your answer. Thanks --Siga (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you.My first thought - The best man to ask is Giancarlo Dessi in Sardinia. I have his e-mail address somewhere.In the meantime look at his website here. Giancarlo is very helpful and up to date

Web address https://www.giand.it/diptera/morph/?id=10&lang=en contact https://www.giand.it/diptera/contact/?lang=it Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I cast already a glance, I think it will be an excellent help! I just have two teeth to be extracted before - tomorrow in the morning --Siga (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Postgonite (=paramere in McAlpine, paraphyse in Griffiths). I have several reasons to favour paramere as my choice but I think this term should be qualified thus paramere sensu McAlpine. I do not like the term podites which is too general.Perhaps the term outer claspers is best since it is anatomical (without homology implications).Almost all Dipterists use McAlpine and would say paramere.Best regards.Notafly (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC) And your opinion? PS Note again the many different and conflicting interpretations that are still unsolved and controversial (Cumming et al., 1995; Cumming & Sinclair, 1996; Griffiths, 1996; Zatwarnicki, 1996; Sinclair, 2000).These are attempts to standardise and/or are based on supposed (hypothetical) homologies not on proofs.

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:GalleassGirona.JPG

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:GalleassGirona.JPG, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Location about File:TreniTuscany (7).JPG, File:TreniTuscany_(3).JPG and others

Hi :) Do you remember the location of the pictures of trains graffiti? I read that was in Lucca, but is the Lucca Centrale railway station?

Thank you. --DnaX (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Parc Montsouris

Hi Notafly,

Sorry for late answer.

You are right about the location, the author and the title of the sculpture « Drama in the desert ». I am not sure I understand want do you want. Do you wish me to take some pictures of that work for you through « Commons »?--Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Have a look in Google copy-pasting: drame dans le désert Parc Montsouris. --Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. Yes - on Commons. If you are in Parc Montsouris for another reason and have the time. It is kind of you to offer.Notafly (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC) There are many wonderful statues in Paris but drame dans le désert lingers in my memory. PS Are you aware of Maison Deyrolle in Rue Du Bac.I imagine photography is allowed.

Wow ! No, I did not know this house « Deyrolle », thanks for the hint ! For sure I’ll have a look some day !--Jebulon (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Papilio thersites

Hi Notafly, this butterfly is not Papilio thersites (compare for example with this page). Are you the one who caught it, and where was it caught? Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Papilio thersites Fabricius 1775.JPG

File:Papilio thersites Fabricius 1775.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Gzzz ^zz 21:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Lalai98.jpg

File:Lalai98.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

LamBoet (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Papilio phorbanta Linnaeus, 1771.JPG

Hi Notafly, FYI, since this butterfly comes from Mauritius, it is actually Papilio manlius Fabricius, 1798. Papilio phorbanta lives in Réunion and has one more blue mark on the forewing. --LamBoet (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Heliotaurus ruficollis

Thank you for your help.--Drow male (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

File:BraccianoGillian2.jpg

File:BraccianoGillian2.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Adelfrank (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Leptidearealimalegenitalia.jpg

Hi Notafly, about this picture, Leptidea reali is no longer thought to occur in Ireland: its Irish populations are now attributed to the newly discovered species Leptidea juvernica. --LamBoet (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed.But note Leptidea reali and Leptidea juvernica are not separable on genitalic characters.So the image should serve for both species. I will put a note on the file description.Best regards Notafly (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Ps At the time the prep (and photo) was made the Ireland specimens were determined as reali. L. juvernica was not recognized.So I do not think the file should be renamed.

Yes, the file name probably does not matter much, but at least the category and file description need to be updated. Best --LamBoet (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Notafly, I re-categorized the file and put a note; feel free to improve it. By the way, is this specimen from Ireland too? Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That is very kind of you.Yes the male imago is from Ireland.Many thanks and best regards Notafly (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info! I put a similar note in its description too. Best regards --LamBoet (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your compliment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

File:AmbulocetusNatans (2).JPG

File:AmbulocetusNatans (2).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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: No FOP in Italy Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Dunkleosteus77.

And also:

• File:AmbulocetusNatans.JPG ( Nominator : Dunkleosteus77 - Reason : No FOP in Italy )
• File:WhaleEvolutionPisa.JPG ( Nominator : Dunkleosteus77 - Reason : No FOP in Italy )

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

File:AmbulocetusNatansPisa.JPG

File:AmbulocetusNatansPisa.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: No FoP in Italy Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Dunkleosteus77.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:AmbulocetusNatansPisa.JPG

File:AmbulocetusNatansPisa.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:KremastiBeachPoster.JPG

File:KremastiBeachPoster.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:ArcadiaPortrush.jpg

Copyright status: File:ArcadiaPortrush.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ArcadiaPortrush.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 VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Didym (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:ConventLisburn.jpg

Copyright status: File:ConventLisburn.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ConventLisburn.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 VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Didym (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:ConventLisburnDemolition.jpg

Copyright status: File:ConventLisburnDemolition.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ConventLisburnDemolition.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 VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Didym (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:ArcadiaPortrush.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ArcadiaPortrush.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:ArcadiaPortrush.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

JuTa 16:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:ConventLisburnDemolition.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ConventLisburnDemolition.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:ConventLisburnDemolition.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

JuTa 16:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:ConventLisburn.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ConventLisburn.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:ConventLisburn.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

JuTa 16:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Museumfür NaturkundeHumanEvolutionParanthropus boisei.jpg

File:Museumfür NaturkundeHumanEvolutionParanthropus boisei.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:RhodesWarMemorial.jpg

Yours sincerely, Geraki ^T_L^G 15:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

File:CrozierCollection.jpg

Hi Notafly - this has been languishing in Category:Unidentified Spheniscidae for over a decade. Yet it has a museum identity label on it, so its identity is (as one would expect) known; it's just too small to decipher in this photo. Would you be able to revisit the museum and get details of what is on the tag, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

File:PosterViaAurelia.JPG

File:PosterViaAurelia.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Jean_Baptiste_Verany_Mollusques_Méditerranéens

Category:Jean_Baptiste_Verany_Mollusques_Méditerranéens 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!

Pikador (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Location?

Hi Notafly - I've added an approximate geolocation for File:PlantagoLanceolataIreland.JPG from google; could you check and correct it as need be, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Fotogalerie Notafly

Hello, I have moved the page to User:Notafly/Fotogalerie Notafly. Greetings from Germny, --Mateus2019 (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting me know. Greetings from Ireland where we are waiting for the rain to stopNotafly (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Supranational PostSoviet Bodies-en.svg requires updating

Hi Notafly,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed File:Supranational PostSoviet Bodies-en.svg is out of date. Artsakh is being dissolved Could you update it? Thanks again. 81.101.7.190 18:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Supranational PostSoviet Bodies-en.svg requires updating

Hi Notafly,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed File:Supranational PostSoviet Bodies-en.svg is out of date. Artsakh is being dissolved, Ukraine and Moldova have left Commonwealth of Independent States and CISFTA Could you update it? Thanks again. 81.101.7.190 18:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)