User talk:Raeky

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Raeky!
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)‎ | +/−

Cirt (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Per section B of said EULA, while Maxis gets a sublicense, they admit to the possibility of the creation of copyrightable material. They are just ensuring that they get the rights to it. In this case, not only to they have rights to it, everyone does, as it was licensed free-use by the copyright holder. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But to be licensed for Commons wouldn't commercial use have to be permitted, I highly doubt the wording means the creator of a creature has commercial use rights. Raeky (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Section 2A, clearly states that the artwork and components of the creature remain a copyright of Maxis, it states you can only use the assets and methods they provide to modify and use the creature. Section 2B limits you to only using "partner sites" to have products made with your creature (you can buy a T-shirt for your use with your creature on it) for example but you can only do this at official partner sites, not at another company and not for your own personal profit. I don't see how this wording would allow you to profit from spore creatures. You can use them for non-commercial purposes (like an avatar for a forum or your own personal website). Raeky (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean at the end of 2A. I'm not certain how actionable that is. So, perhaps the best thing to do is to put this back up for deletion and try and get some more of our experts involved in this. If you are more comfortable, I will put this back up for deletion discussion. Please let me know. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you did it already Face-smile.svg -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm here, Thanks for your help. --Zink Dawg (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the place to be for images, just be sure to follow the rules! :P Raeky (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Flickr review application[edit]

Hello Raeky, and thank you for your application to be a flickr reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. Congratulations! Please see Commons:Flickr images if you haven't done so already, and the backlogs at Category:Flickr images needing human review and Category:Flickr review needed. A helpful script for easy-tagging flickr images is at importScript('User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js'); (which you can add to your monobook.js), and you can add {{user reviewer}} or {{user trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your work on Commons! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

feedback on upload tool[edit]

Sure! I'll be happy to give you some feedback. Right now I'm cleaning up the categories of images in the Formicidae cat, but later on I'll try your tool and let you know what i think of it :) Cheers, Waldir talk 09:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — raeky (talk | edits) 09:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The tool uses an "observation number". On Mushroom Observer, each image gets a number and each "observation" which is a collection of images about the observation is grouped along with public consensus tool for the ID of the fungus. You can browse most recent observations here, and at the top of each observation page it says "Observation: Amanita sp. Pers. (26566)" the 26566 is what you put into the tool. To see which license the uploader picked for the image though you have to click on the image page, they have two options ones wikimedia compatible the other is NC. The tool will visually indicate which is not compatible along with putting the copyvio template in the upload form similar to how Flinfo tool does. — raeky (talk | edits) 09:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I was afraid you'd ping :P sorry! I've been rather busy with some projects I'm on, and I've been dedicating all my wiki time to the AntWeb upload. I didn't forget though, so don't worry, hold on there :) --Waldir talk 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries. :D — raeky (talk | edits) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


I looked at the template you made for that website and I noticed several problems with it. The banner image will go across a lot of people's screens, so it will be a lot of scrolling. Also, when we name image templates, we don't include "permission" in the title, since we already know it is an image license template. Anyways, I was working on a new version at Template:AntWeb and see what are some things you could do in the future. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The existing template has been renamed and worked on and is already on over 200 images. It would be BEST to contiune to use it and fix any issues with it. The naming with "permission" is not abnormal, look in Category:Custom_CC_license_tags. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I always use as a model when it comes to permission templates, but you are welcome to take the layouts I have and use it for the main template. It just makes everything nice and easy to read. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Also keep in mind the current template has the proper licenses for how these images are going to be released by his bot, so don't be changing licenses, OTRS is also pending, you can change the image if you wish but I wouldn't change anything else. Also your new template should probably be nominated for deletion since it isn't the correct licenses or used. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The license has not changed at all, it still links to CC-BY-SA-3.0. The OTRS template is still present. It is just the layout really bugged me and other users. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I also did a changing of the wording so it sounds more like our licensing templates. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't you need to include the wording "In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one." on it now since you removed the official CC template? — raeky (talk | edits) 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Added. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds better. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at Abigor's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Huib talk 17:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing the images :) I've deleted the ones you marked, but for some of them, I was unable to find the duplicated version. Could you point me to them? The images in question are: File:Paratrechina pubens CASENT0104862 0.jpg, File:Polyergus nigerrimus CASENT0173329 0.jpg and File:Eciton vagans CASENT0173509 0.jpg. Thanks, Waldir talk 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are not duplicated yet, but are just not in use. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ✓ Done--Waldir talk 22:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted all the Antweb images uploaded by you, on that list. There are two (not one, as you said) that weren't marked for deletion. As for missing uploads, well, I know there some minor errors to fix, so I suppose these could be part of them. Dave has been busy lately, so he told me, but I expect him to be able to finish the job soon :) I'll now start deleting Filip em's images you've marked for deletion. Cheers, Waldir talk 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant one casent hasn't been uploaded (CASENT0106181), sorry. Not sure why it hasn't yet since it has full species name. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've deleted all of Filip em's images as well, now. File:Anillomyrma vn01 casent0179534 p 1 high.jpg and File:Aenictogiton sp.jpg were kept. When I get the change, I'll ask Dave about the missing uploads and will update you :) --Waldir talk 18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No probs. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, thanks or clarifying the situation regarding the Aulacopone relicta image. I was really surprised there was a golden ant until you unveiled the mystery :P --Waldir talk 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, yea I laughed when I saw it. That image probably shouldn't be used in articles unless it has a disclosure that it's not natural. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually it would be GREAT to illustrate en:Sputter coating. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you already did that. By the way, what is "SEM"? Also, why don't you add the information that the color is not natural to the image's description yourself? :)
Regarding the 3 other images that weren't on my list -- I'm not sure how those slipped under my nose, but I've deleted them as well now. Cheers, Waldir talk 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
SEM I could I guess. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

image of old sculpture in my contributions.[edit]

is there anyway this file can be saved from deletion? could someone maybe contact martin foreman the one who took the photo or somehow find a licease for this work? i found more info. thanks KSLaVida (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Translated from the bottom of the page you just linked to "Insecula is not negotiating rights for reproduction of pictures contained in the site. Needless to submit an application." So I'd say there is no chance. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Elakala Waterfalls Swirling Pool Mossy Rocks.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Elakala Waterfalls Swirling Pool Mossy Rocks.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elakala Waterfalls Swirling Pool Mossy Rocks.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, look.

Thanks for the fix[edit]

Kind of a silly upload tool that breaks the template? Your help is appreciated. :) Durova (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Donno how much I fixed it, it still has several issues I think, looks jumbled. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Insect Images uploads[edit]

Hi Raeky - nice work on these; two requests; first, please edit out or crop off the UGA watermark before uploading; and second, please try to avoid over-categorisation on them! e.g. when a species goes in Category:Corydalus (for its genus), it shouldn't also go in the various parent categories of that (Category:Corydalidae, Category:Neuroptera, Category:Insects, etc.); neither should it go in non-relevant categories like Category:Fungi, Category:Plants, Category:Forestry, Category:Entomology, Category:Silviculture, Category:Photographs, etc. It just means someone has to go through them and remove all the superfluous categories - Thanks! MPF (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The watermark template is there, i created an upload tool for that website ( and the initial test was auto-categories from a keywords list the website had, but it turns out they use to many generic keywords that also exist as categories here so it added a bunch, the tool now just adds the category for the species name and thats it. As for the watermark, if someone uses the image and cares to have it removed theres plenty of avenues to remove the watermarks. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


No, here on Commons I don't have a bot, sorry. --Waldir talk 18:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mushrooms images[edit]

Cos you seem to be very familiar with the mushroom database, that you are uploading pictures from right now, may I ask you to upload the pictures of Merulius tremellosus from it? I'd appreciate. Thx. Masur (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Heres what's available, only 3 new images I uploaded from the source I'm working on now: Category:Merulius tremellosus — raeky (talk | edits) 08:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate! Thx a lot. Masur (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. ;-) — raeky (talk | edits) 08:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that Merulius tremellosus is a synonym name with Phlebia tremellosa and more pictures exist for it under that name: Category:Phlebia tremellosa — raeky (talk | edits) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldnt we merge these two categories? What do you think? Masur (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably, according to Fungorum Merulius tremellosus is the preferred name with Phlebia tremellosa as a synonym. But according to Mushroom Observer Phlebia tremellosa is preferred over Merulius tremellosus, so there is clearly some taxonomic confusion here from these two sources. I'd tend to believe Fungorum over MO, but someone with some experience here should weigh in on which name is preferred. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Female Mexican fruit fly.jpg[edit]

File:Female Mexican fruit fly.jpg is not an exact duplicate of File:Anastrepha ludens 1322089.jpg. We keep different versions of the same image. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Hatching barnstar.png[edit]

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

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.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:IUCN red list[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know that this thread has lead to this partnership. Thanks for your help! GoEThe (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, what software are you using to produce these maps? — raeky (talk | edits) 11:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am using ArcGIS. But I guess any software that can import ESRI shapefiles and export SVG or PNG will do. GoEThe (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats a bit beyond the realm of my purchasing power... But I'd like to help prepare a list of maps that can be made for Wikipedia.. Let me investigate and see what can be done, unless you want to convert _all_ the data over, that might be challenging but ultimately would be good. ;-) — raeky (talk | edits) 16:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, if my work laptop didn't have it installed, I would never been able to afford it either. But look into [1], there might be something good there. GoEThe (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I definitely would appreciate your help on doing this. GoEThe (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
What we need is someone with access to the tool server, because (a) it's impossible to get, I've tried and (b) theres tens of thousands of these files for species. Ideally should search the database if a en.wikipedia (And any other language you want) page exists for the species, and generate a list of species that we have wikipedia pages for and has GIS map info for, then we can start plowing through those generating the maps... *sigh*.. This is a pretty HUGE undertaking. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If it was easy it wouldn't be fun. There are also those maps that may exist, but are bad quality or don't cite any source. But the priority should definitely be ones that don't exist at all. I can start making a list of species with GIS data. That should be straightforward. GoEThe (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, should be easy, I think the website has XLS files of all the species, which would be trivial to import into a database. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I found a command line converter, but apparently I don't understand it well enough to make it work... if we could figure out the settings for that then we could in theory upload all the shape files to the tool server and it could just automatically generate every SVG and upload it, or generate the ones we want on-demand.... donno if thats possible though. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if that would work. First, there is one shapefile with all amphibians, one with all reptiles, etc. Another thing is that we have to crop the view for species with limited distributions. Apart from that, they weren't very keen on distributing the shapefiles widely, they would prefer for people to download it directly from their website, I don't know how they would react if I told them that I was uploading it to the toolserver. GoEThe (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If that automated script could yank out individual maps from the giant shape files, it would be just for the automated process, not for distribution of the shape file. I.e. we wouldn't be rehosting their files, just using them to simi-automated way to create maps from. Question is if that's even remotely possible. I attempted to run it on a very small shape file and it appears to have just mangled up everything in one .svg, and quite possibly I don't have a clue and know how to answer the 50 questions it asked correctly too. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I also found this script [2] that does the same thing. I would still have to save one file for each map, with the layout all set and everything, but it might speed up the svg conversion. GoEThe (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review notice[edit]

Lepiota magnispora[edit]

Hello. I noticed you uploaded ten photographs of a fungus presumed to be Lepiota magnispora from Mushroom Observer. I reckon they are all mistaken for Lepiota clypeolaria. L. magnispora is characterised by a yellowish veil and velar remnants, while L. clypeolaria has pure white ones but is otherwise very similar. I have informed the author on Mushroom Hobby and will recategorise the files uploaded here.--Paffka (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They come from this observation, you should post on that observation and let them know if you think it's a different species. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Discharge tubes[edit]

Please look here: new images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of copyvio tagging[edit]

You have tagged the following two files for speedy deletion:

However these are obviously very old images and the description indicates the original artist. You could simply correct the descriptions and change the license tags to {{PD-old-100}}. Please in the future use {{copyvio}} for obvious cases of real copyright violations. SV1XV (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Same applies for the following obviously old images:

All these images are ok, although there were mistakes in the descriptions. Please don't abuse speedy deletion tagging. SV1XV (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of those images he was claiming Own Work under source and improper licenses (all of them?). It's not my job to correct all that and check what the license was, claiming it was his and licencing it under an attribution license is inappropriate. How else do you tag images like that to be handled? He also had intermixed throughout those uploads plenty of other legitimate copyright violations of FOP in France. Your welcome to throw the word abuse around all you like, but unless theres a better way to tag inappropriately licensed images, then suggest someone use those instead of throwing the word abuse around. I didn't see anyone else sorting through his hundred or so uploads to find the problems. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course there are better ways to handle it. If you notice such problems, obviously you may correct them yourself. Or, if you are not sure what to do, you may post a message on Commons_talk:Licensing, so that someone else may take care of it. There is also a tag {{Wrong-license}}, which can be used in addition to the existing inappropriate license tag to indicate problems of this type. {{copyvio}} is only for obvious copyright violations, like photos of celebrities harvested on the internet, TV screen captures, scans from newspapers, music album covers etc. SV1XV (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out {{Wrong-license}}, I wasn't aware of that tag. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bronislaw_Komorowski_2010_grey_crop.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bronislaw_Komorowski_2010_grey_crop.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Bronislaw_Komorowski_2010_grey_crop.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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!

Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats because it was a crop of another file that got deleted, see the original description when I uploaded it. Others has since modified the description and I didn't notice. The crop was made in response to a request on the English Wiki's Graphics Lab, feel free to delete it or whatever in accordance with the reasons the original was deleted. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I also asked the editor who changed the source and license information because I dont believe the change is valid (the photo was uploaded at a time when Komorowski was not president, so its not a presidency photo). The original issue is still a lack of permission, the uploader himself tagged his original upload File:Bronislaw Komorowski 2010 grey.jpg with a missing permission tag. I see that you are not involved. --Martin H. (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Raeky!

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:


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]]

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) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

your changing of my legitimate tag[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Commons policy, I had every right to put that tag on the image. Your copyright paranoia does not make copyvio an automatic fact, it should be discussed by the community at large. I've undone you, and I am noting your bad faith.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing a speedy tag to delete tag when it clearly is a violation of COM:DW is a bit silly, but if you want to edit war about it, we'll go with a DR. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


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

Huib talk Abigor @ meta 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Stop[edit]

What do you mean? Editor182 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

By marking pictures that got undeleted for a valid reason, and should say because there is no copyright concern, for speedy again. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said on your Wikipedia talk page, I don't want any of my images on Commons. At the moment I'm only interested in getting two of my images deleted (Authors Request). Editor182 (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello Patrick Harvey ,

My name is Rita Neves. I work in Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Portugal. Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure. We found your photos on Wikimedia Commons and liked specially one of them very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photos, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone. The photo we are considering to use are the following:

Lycoperdum perlatum 60142

The brochure will have four brackets. - Broochura a pocket to take the route - A brochure to present the day of inauguration

- Schedules for species identification
- Panels that will be fixed in the Land

As i said the Free Access will be everything :)

If you are the author and provide us that photo, we will refer your name in the bibliografy and we need to know what´s the name you want on the bibliography? Patrick Harvey ? If it´s possible please respond to or or here on Wikimedia.

Thank you very much. Our best regards


I think I got the source right. What do you think? Gut Monk (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo editing?[edit]

What photo editing software did you use to clean up the Hillary software? Gut Monk (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Adobe Photoshop and a plugin called Noise Ninja ( — raeky (talk | edits) 02:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File:United States (orthographic projection).svg[edit]

Hi! I see in the file history that you were able to change the colour of one island. I tried doing that myself, but I am unable to make any sense of it in Inkscape. So I was wondering if you could try to change the colour of Puerto Rico from gray to green? It is part of the US, and though it isn't a state it should be marked in the map. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Monster Energy Drink can shot discussions[edit]

I took the liberty of rolling the two deletion requests you started, into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monster M-80.jpg, since the discussions and eventual decisions were going to be identical. --Ytoyoda (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:ZOLOFT_(sertraline_HCI)_Crop.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)‎ | +/−

Grand-Duc (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Raeky[edit]

Dear Raeky, I saw your amazing restoring work, could you please help me with File:Isa boletini.jpg? He deserve a nice picture, and I think you are the right one to do this. I self has totally no skills doing it so maybe you can help me! Really Really Thanks --Vinie007 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't anything that can be done to improve that linked image, the resolution is just too low. It looks like some sort of lithograph made from this picture, that or he posed in that very position often. To do restoration you need decent starting material, sorry. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm let me find it :) --Vinie007 (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What about this or this one --Vinie007 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
All way to small, like web graphics. What kind of picture do you want? The ones I started with where VERY high resolution scans from the library of congress, many many many megapixels. Without a REALLY good source you can't expect any good results. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
A oke thanks for your time --Vinie007 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:STS-107 reentry.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:STS-107 reentry.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)‎ | +/−

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at Chemicalinterest's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Currently under sanctions?[edit]

In reply to your recent comment, imagine being appreciated like this after spending countless hours of your time and effort contributing to these projects. It's not nice to bring up past mistakes, and the recent mistake is no different, I did not know, and thus, it was a good faith edit. It's not nice to hear "structural abuses our procedures" from administrators either. It would be nice to hear; take it easy, everyone makes mistakes. I made mistakes in the past? Well, I've got to learn and still do. Everyone learns.

How would you like to be called off as a vandal when you're trying to contribute in a genuine manner? Do you think that's the only way people will learn, just a sign of complete disregard to the vast majority of excellent contributions, and bringing up past mistakes?

I got a message on my talk from Housed, and I apologized. Don't even remotely act like you don't know that I've significantly contributed far more to these projects than I have had incidences, or I would be gone, as would you or anyone else. Also imagine being monitored closely, like you're some vandal on the prowl. That's not something that would be justified or wanted for you, right? Just me, then? No, it's not. Anyway, monitor, or don't, I'm not accusing you of being the only one. I think there are more considerate ways of correcting a mistake, should you come across it.

PS: What do you mean I'm "currently under sanctions"? Please reply here and leave a notification on my talk page. Regards Editor182 (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see what you mean, Housed doesn't appear to be an admin nor does sanctions appear to be on you at Commons? I do see that you're not archiving your talk page like you're supposed to do, you edit it saying "Archiving" or did in the past but never actually made an edit to the archive page, which you've also now blanked. Blanking your talk page without archiving makes it seem like your hiding past transgressions and will likely result in harsher treatment from an admin if you do do something in the future again. Noone likes digging through past revisions to see what you've been told in the past. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Upload tools[edit]

Hello Raeky, are there still tools to upload the files, especially from Mushroom Observer? --Toffel (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Flinfo tool now does MO... — raeky (talk | edits) 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Toffel (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:Akalethia[edit]

Hi Raeky, after I blocked User:Akalethia I had a brief email exchange with him in which he stated he has permission from the Kapoor studio to post these images. I pointed him towards OTRS but never received any reply. With the latest upload his edit summary on en suggests that he may be Kapoor himself. Either way perhaps {{No permission since}} would be appropriate. Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, changing. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


I just responded to a question you asked me from October when you visited my talk page... :-) See my talk page. In short, the answer is Help:Zoomable images. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Brady Haran 01.jpg'[edit]

I have the permission and forwarded the e-mail. Please do not delete. I really don't understand you folks, I asked to remove the 'Brady Haran.jpg' because of an error and you didn't. Now the other file I need to keep you guys want to delete. It's certainly not because of permission, because it came from the same e-mail. What is it, then? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately Licensed[edit]

You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Licence for image of Susan Blackmore[edit]

Hi, re your notice here, is what I've added here suffucient, or is more needed? Sorry, am not up to speed re licensing! Cheers--A bit iffy (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to say, the presumption is that she has a written copyright release or statement to the copyright from "Jolyon Troscianko" but just saying that "May be used without copyright restrictions" is not specifically stating it's released as public domain. Generally in this case I would think COM:OTRS would be required via e-mail correspondence with her. You may take it up with one of the copyright noticeboards and see what they think about the statements on that webpage... Regardless you do have to credit the image as taken by Jolyon Troscianko, regardless. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

2014 ![edit]

Christmasornaments.png * * * 2014! * * *
Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Happy holidays! -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Inactive Image-reviewers[edit]

Hello Raeky, there is a discussion about a request regarding your image-reviewer user right, which have never been used or not used recently. You can participate discussion in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Inactive_Image-reviewers. This is just a notification of discussion you may be involved. Best regards, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues[edit]

Hello Raeky. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)