More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 11:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Erasing information about translated images
Ok I really don't get this edit File:Orbit1.svg). And to revert it seems rather extreme... it's not like it was a vandal addition or anything. So, please explain this action. --Helixitta (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC): why should this information be reverted? It's a common practice for such images to be translated and for information about the translations to be available publicly so that another person wouldn't download the same translation of the same file (e.g.
- I didn't notice that that image was translated and links to translated version (because title is not made as link) and reverted this edit again (restored first version). Darekk2 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding File:Moon-Earth distance, Moon phases.gif
I came across your image of the moon-earth distance (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon-Earth_distance,_Moon_phases.gif) and was interested in how you got the data. On the description, you mentioned that it was calculated using algorithms from Jean Meeus, but I was wondering if you stil remember the formula you used.
Category:Odonata eyes is a category for pictures showing exclusively eyes of dragonflies or eye-secific details are exclusively highlighted. If the whole head is visible as in File:Gomphus vulgatissimus eyes 004b.jpg, every human with a normal intelligence would find it in the Category:Odonata heads category, if he searches for pictures showing the whole head to illustrate a "insect eyes" article. Of course for a good odonata eyes gallery page different rules would apply, as a gallery page named Odonata eyes schould give an overview how Odonata eyes may look like, while a category page schould show all pictures showing Odonata eyes (and NOT the whole head!). - Kersti (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are many pictures in these two categories, where eyes are less exposed than in my pictures you removed. Moreover Gomphus vulgatissimus has eyes separated, do not adhering to each other and it is impossible to photograph them without entire head, but you don't know that apparently, because you are able to parasite on work of other people only. Maybe you have something to do with so called ecological NGOs paid by PO party. Moreover between the main eyes ocelli are visible. You probably don't know what are ocelli. I restored Category Odonata eyes so far and maybe will restore Insect compound eyes sooner or later. The only reason I have not done it is that these eyes are sharp only on small area, because this is photograph of an alive dragonfly, in the field. Darekk2 (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I told you: Whenever a photo of the whole head is the best illustration for the eyes of an animal a separate category for "eyes" ist not useful. How one possibly could conclude from this, that I don't know what ocelli (simply look in the history of Category:Insect ocelli, and Category:Insect eyes to see that in fact I know this!) are is a logic I don't understand at all. Sorry but this is really illogical.
For gallery pages apply different rules, as they should give an overview over the topic.
For the question who "parasites" (funny expression in this case) in the work of whom some more version-history-looking may teach you something interesting.
Stop reverting edits without answering.
- You didn't answer my last comment
- Your first answer was a thing, which doesn't count as answer, as you neihter seem to unterstand what I tell you nor react on the things I said, but instead made useless ironical comments.
- You still didn't answer the questien why your photo should be the exemption to the general rule Whenever a photo of the whole head is the best illustration for the eyes of an animal a separate category for "eyes" ist not useful.
There must be a reason why about 1% of my edits are reverted but about 25% of yours are. The reason is not that you are polite and think thorowly about the answers of the people you speak to. Maybe you think that your personal opinion about a topic is an absolute truth? I guess so!
- I did it again because that version image was uploaded by mistake and has nothing to do with the image. You are not allowed to keep it. Delete that version of image as soon as possible please. Darekk2 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)