User talk:Ak ccm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ak ccm!

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 | 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, Ak ccm!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

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) 10:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Renames[edit]

Did you contact the person listed on the description pages for these files based on your thoughts that they're a different taxon?

Also, they are all listed on galleries matching their current names. – Adrignola talk 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't contact the autor for each single photo. A large number of fungi pictures of Lindsey is wrong determined. It's much work to correct this. Although I wrote him in January 2011 regarding a wrong photo and he answers me: "I corrected it a long time ago on my site but do not know how to modify Wiki (someone else put my pictures on Wiki). If you know how to fix it, please do!" So I think the renames are all right. Furthermore we're listing critical photos on a subpage of the german WikiProject Fungi and discussed them if it is necessary before we add the renames. --Ak ccm (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Done. – Adrignola talk 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename requests[edit]

You requested a rename of File:2006-03-10 Stereum hirsutum.jpg to File:Stereum hirsutum - Lindsey.jpg, but the target file name exists. Could you change the request to an alternative target file name. Thanks. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I changed the target file name. --Ak ccm (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Exzellente Pilzfotos![edit]

Hi, ich bin grad dabei, die Überfüllung von Category:Fungi ein bißchen anzugehen. Wie ich deine Fotos konkret rekategorisiere: Bei der Taxonomie/Systematik kenn ich mich nicht so gut aus (sorry, Zoologe hier), deswegen versuch ich erst mal wenn noch alle taxonomischen Kategorien rot sind den Artnamen wegzunehmen. Wenn das nicht hilft laß ich das Bild einfach in "Category:Fungi", damit sich Spezialisten drum kümmern. Sonst kommt's raus und kriegt die volle Kategorie-Packung. Zb File:2007-03-11 Amylostereum laevigatum.jpg. Ich packe den exakten Fundort in die Beschreibung, und benutze Category:Fungi of Germany. Wir haben aber auch Category:Nature of Bavaria, also nehm ich das auch (wenn der Standort nicht Unterkategorie davon ist, also irgendwelche Schutzgebiete oder anderweitig bemerkenswertes Habitat).

Die Mykorrhizapartner nehm ich aus den Kategorien raus wenn sie auf dem Bild nicht drauf sind, aber ich pack sie in die Beschreibung wenn das sinnig ist (also bei Habitusfotos, zB File:2010-08-25 Boletus subappendiculatus.jpg). Man könnte sich überlegen, die Artkategorie zumindest bei (quasi-)obligater Symbiose als Unterkategorie der Partnerpflanze einzusortieren, also wenn der übliche Partner von Boletus subappendiculatus die Picea abies wäre (ich weiß nicht ob das so ist), die "Boletus subappendiculatus"-Kategorie, wenn es sie dann irgendwann gibt, auch unter "Picea abies" einzusortieren. Das könnte man auf jede Art von starkem Mutualismus ausdehnen; macht zwar noch keiner, aber nach einer ähnlichen Logik ("verwandte" - konzeptionell, nicht taxonomisch - Kategorien zusammen) wird anderweitig schon umfangreich sortiert.

Außerdem siehe COM:CFD#Category:Mushrooms_by_country, auf Basis eines landesbasierten Systems kann man dann parallel ein biogeographisches (also ländergrenzenübergreifendes) System bauen. Aber das ist Zukunftsmusik. Bei einigen Fotos war gar keine Ortsangabe dabei, ich hab die nicht in "Fungi of Germany" sortiert aber ich nehm mal an daß sie dort (und in "Nature of Bavaria") gehören, kannst das ja evtl nachtragen (bislang sind die nur taxonomisch sortiert). Damit die Landeskategorien nicht überlaufen, kann man als ersten Schritt schon mal für Landesendemiten die taxonomische Kategorie in "Fungi of [Land]" packen; ich hab das mit der neotropischen Avifauna ausprobiert, und es funktioniert sehr gut.

Bilder ohne Identifikation pack ich in Category:Unidentified fungi. Da sind ein paar prächtige Exemplare dabei (Fotos von Ralf Roletschek), vermutlich alle aus Deutschland, aber bislang keine Angaben. Kannst ja mal schauen, ob du irgendwas identifiziert kriegst.

Ach ja, Category:Mushrooms of Germany ist ja strenggenommen nur für "Hutpilze" jetzt wo wir "Fungi of Germany" haben. Ich hab den anderen Kram (Becherlinge etc) rausgemacht zurück in "Fungi", aber noch nix von "Fungi" in "Mushrooms" verschoben weil ich erst mal nur alles in ersterer sammeln wollte. Möglicherweise wäre die erste Unterkategorie von "Fungi" die man anlegen wollen würde "Fungi of Bavaria", damit man "Nature of Bavaria" und "Fungi of Germany" bei deinen Bildern als eine Kategorie zusammenfassen kann. Prinzipell aber würde ich bei "Fungi of [Land]" 3 Gruppen von Unterkategorien sehen: 1. regional, 2. analog Category:Fungi by shape, 3. endemische Taxa. Das kann man dann durchaus gruppieren, zB mit "| [Region]" und "|*[Morphologie]" und "|[Taxon]" (oder halt "| [Taxon]" und "|[Region]", wenn es mehr Regionen als Endemiten gibt) würde man alle 3 Gruppen in "Fungi of [Land]" schön sauber untergebracht kriegen ohne daß man unnötig Kram wie "Fungi of Germany by shape" einführen muß. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Danke für die Mühe. Vielleicht wäre die Diskussion zentral auf der Diskussionsseite des WikiProjekts Pilze besser aufgehoben? Denn ich vermute, dass wir Pilzler ein mehr oder weniger eigenes System verwenden. So könnte man wahrscheinlich am schnellsten Ordnung reinbringen. --Ak ccm (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:2011-12-04 Mucronella bresadolae (Quél.) Corner 187670.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | 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:2011-12-04 Mucronella bresadolae (Quél.) Corner 187670.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:2011-12-04 Mucronella bresadolae (Quél.) Corner 187670.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!

Common Good (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing[edit]

never seen this fungi before, File:2012-02-16 Coccomyces dentatus (J.C. Schmidt & Kunze) Sacc 199890.jpg. i would support it being nominated for valued, featured, or quality image, esp. as something most people have never seen before.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Agaricus arvensis - 3.jpg[edit]

Hi Ak ccm,

This sp. could be Chlorophyllum brunneum? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri,
yes, it's possible that the picture is showing C. brunneum. But without a picture of the stem and especially oft the base (C. brunneum has a more or less margined-bulbous stem base) I'm not 100% sure. Another possible species is C. rachodes because much rachodes-collections before Vellinga's paper are truly C. olivieri. --Ak ccm (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info! DenesFeri (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ziegenlippe[edit]

Hallo Ak ccm, entschuldige bitte, dass ich erst jetzt antworte aber meistens komme ich leider nur 1 bis 2 mal die Woche dazu, auf meinen Wikiaccount zu sehen. Vielen Dank für die Anmerkung! Das ist wirklich super, dass sich jemand die Bilder genauer ansieht und sich Gedanken darüber macht! Bei dem gezeigten Exemplar habe ich leider nicht nach dem Basalmyzel geschaut, jedoch fand ich in diesem Gebiet stets Xerocomus subtomentosus. Der Wald dort besteht aus verschiedenen Parzellen mit unterschiedlichen Baumarten und macht ihn deshalb mycologisch sehr interessant. Der Standort des gezeigten Exemplares befand sich genau zwischen einem Buchen-Eichen Bestand und einer jüngeren Fichtenschonung (alter Forstweg bedeckt mit Fichtenreisig). Nun wäre es durchaus interessant, ob der gezeigte Geselle wirklich die Varietät ferrugineus zeigt, denn es wäre meines Wissens nach ein Erstfund in diesem Gebiet (dies muss ich im kommenden Herbst unbedingt überprüfen:-)). Nun zu der Beschriftung des Fotos. Nach meinem Kenntnisstand wird aktuell Xerocomus ferrugineus nicht als eigene Art, sondern als eine Varietät von Xerocomus subtomentosus angesehen: Xerocomus subtomentosus var. ferrugineus (Schaeffer) Krieglsteiner 1991, Krieglsteiner: Die Großpilze Baden Württembergs, Band 2, Eugen Ulmer Verlag (2000), Seite: 329 oder auch MycoBank [1]. Da ich bei meinen Pilzfotografien grundsätzlich auf die Varietätsangaben verzichte (die Zuordnungen ändern sich mir persönlich in letzten Jahren ein wenig zu häufig:-)), würde ich Xerocomus subtomentosus durchaus als legitim ansehen oder was meinst Du? Viele Grüße aus Ulm und nochmals vielen Dank -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Surreal Barnstar Hires.png The Surreal Barnstar
For uploading valuable images from the website Mushroomobserver. Natuur12 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:2014-06-17 Tapinella panuoides (Batsch) E.-J. Gilbert 431811.jpg[edit]

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

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:2014-06-17 Tapinella panuoides (Batsch) E.-J. Gilbert 431811.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

File:2008-03-08 Hydnangium carneum crop.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:2008-03-08 Hydnangium carneum crop.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.

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 | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 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)‎ | +/−

Revent (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a derivative of an image that has a non-commercial license at the source http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/12126 and so can't be licensed in a manner compatible with Commons. Revent (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my late answer, Revent. I always import images from MushroomObserver.org with Flinfo. If I choose an image with a non compatible license the tool shows an error message. I think the owner of the photo has changed the license of his photo after I imported it to Commons. However the photo was deleted. --Ak ccm (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It was http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/12126 if that helps. Reventtalk 13:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Er... I said that before, long ago (duh). If if was licensed at the time of upload, then it should be okay (CC licenses are non-revocable) but it never went through license review before I looked at it, unfortunately. I 'vagely' remember looking a bunch of images from there, I think I was messing with the template at the time. Reventtalk 13:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I know. The shown license is not compatible. But as I imported the photo to Commons with Flinfo the license was compatible. Otherwise the import would not work. --Ak ccm (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I just 'somehow' got an edit conflict with you without the error...
It's often a good idea, when uploading stuff from a third party site, to archive the page at the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) manually when you do so... it maked the status verifiable later, and avoids issues with changed licenses. Reventtalk 13:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a good hint - thank you! Have a nice day and a good start in the week. --Ak ccm (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Ick, nevermind, that site is not archivable due to a robots.txt. (sigh) I'd suggest specifically adding {{license review}} under the license template when you upload stuff, then... a 'near term' review is more likely to verify the same license. Reventtalk 14:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Amanita gemmata 2016-06-08.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Amanita gemmata 2016-06-08.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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Basvb (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)