Gerrit
Plant photos
editHi Gerrit - I fear the source you are using has a considerable number of typographical errors, and also out-of-date taxonomy in several instances. It would be a lot easier if these errors could be corrected before uploading the pics, rather than having to do all the corrections after the event. Before uploading any more pics, could you post a text list of what there is to come, so corrections can be done in advance of uploading? - Thanks, MPF 18:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear this. As I know nothing about plant taxonomy myself, I didn't notice. Before uploading the next batch, I will post a list somewhere of the categorization and other properties, so that more knowledgeable users like you are able to correct it in advance. Thanks for your help on this issue, as I like to get it correct. Gerrit 18:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'll take a look and check it out - MPF 21:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi Gerrit - the Images shown on the page Lilium pensylvanicum are absolutely mis-identified. They probably show Hemerocallis, but definitely not Lilium. And of course it is not a pensylvanicum too. Sorry, Denisoliver 20:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello Gerrit. Could you please have a look to User talk:Topjabot. I answered to some problems which were already mentioned there. Thanx --:Bdk: 07:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also found misidentified plants. The pictures on the page Anthericum liliago (Liliaceae) both do not show this plant. The first picture seems to be a some kind of Cornus. BerndH 15:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello Gerrit, Other misidentified plant. This is a lemnaceae but Lemna minor, possibly a Spirodela polyrhiza. (common duckmeat from North America) Pixeltoo 11:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Images
editHi Gerrit, I read that you got permission to use all images of Kurt Stüber under GFDL. At first I want to say wow congratulations as I myself have asked serval times people releasing their content GFDL-free (and I was not always sucessfull). I would suggest to you that you put the (Email) permission for documentation on a subpage of your user page so that there can be no question in future. E.g. look at my subpage: User:Arnomane/Requests. As I'm also trying to improve the descriptions of images within the Wikimedia Commons I have created Template:Information recently and I think it is quite useful out of several reasons (look at Commons:Village pump archive-13#New image description template). You can find an example using this template e.g. at Image:Magic-Telescope.jpg. Some more info can be found at Commons:Criteria for inclusion and Template talk:Information. So I would be glad if you can add the usage of this template to your bot if you like it. Arnomane 17:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Acnistus australis
editShouldnt some of these px be rotated 90 degrees? TeunSpaans 20:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Illustration of Vicia hirsuta
editHi. I'd like to ask you for assistance for the following illustration: [[1]] I'm not sure if that picture is under copyright restrictions or not. And I do not want to upload it without permission. If that illustration is free it would be really nice if you could upload it to wikimedia commons and add a link to Vicia hirsuta. PS: I read [my german discussion] more often. Many thanks. Fabelfroh 20:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Licenses
editHello Gerrit, could you please go through all your old images and add description, source and license information where it is necessary, soon. See Image:Cairn 3.jpg for example. Thanks --:Bdk: 07:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I've also found misidentified photos. I hid the photos on the article -- they are most definitely not Neomarica northiana. Not quite sure what they are. I didn't edit the photo descriptions--thought I might leave that up to you. Thanks! Rkitko 08:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Image deletion notice
editHi Gerrit,
Because of misidentification and low image quality, I have put :Image:Sarracenia purpurea2.jpg up for deletion.
Image deletion warning | Image:Sarracenia purpurea2.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
Small confusion with username
editHi I stumbled across a user page of a non existant user User:Gerritholl which got refered from your bot page User:Topjabot. The non existant user's page has been deleted in order to avoid confusion and the links on Topjabot have ben changed to you: [2] (I hope this is right that way). There were also some old questions from users on the talk page of User:Gerritholl that therefor you never did see, so I am copying them here below (in case they are still relevant). Arnomane 09:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
hi Gerrit,
you placed Lysimachia vulgaris in the family Primulacea, why? Shouldnt it be in Myrsinaceae? TeunSpaans 17:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Gerrit, I read that you got permission to use all images of Kurt Stüber under GFDL. At first I want to say wow congratulations as I myself have asked serval times people releasing their content GFDL-free (and I was not always sucessfull). I would suggest to you that you put the (Email) permission for documentation on a subpage of your user page so that there can be no question in future. E.g. look at my subpage: User:Arnomane/Requests. As I'm also trying to improve the descriptions of images within the Wikimedia Commons I have created Template:Information recently and I think it is quite useful out of several reasons (look at Commons:Village pump archive-13#New image description template). You can find an example using this template e.g. at Image:Magic-Telescope.jpg. Some more info can be found at Commons:Criteria for inclusion and Template talk:Information. So I would be glad if you can add the usage of this template to your bot if you like it. Arnomane 17:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Poor image quality
editHi Gerrit,
Because of poor image quality, I requested deletion for some of the plant-images you uploaded. I would be ashamed to place such out-of-focus images on the internet, even if they were not my pictures.
Image deletion warning | Image:Carline vulgaris0.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
Image deletion warning | Image:Carline vulgaris1.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
Image deletion warning | Image:Ophiopogon jaburan1.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
Bot
editHallo
There is a template for bots for using it in the babelbox. you only need to add
{{babel-1|bot}}
to the userpage of your bot. With greetings. Augiasstallputzer 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Marianne_Langkamp_1.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Marianne_Langkamp_1.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. EugeneZelenko 15:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Tineke Slagter, 2006.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Tineke Slagter, 2006.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Dodo 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Tulipa liniifolia1.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Tulipa liniifolia1.jpg. This image 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).
Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. |EPO| 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Groepsfoto_roodbestuur4.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Groepsfoto_roodbestuur4.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. GeorgHH 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Image-Neurofibromatosis plexiform neurofibroma 2.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
Wrong ID, the name of the plant is Silene viscaria. Please correct. epibase 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you are the author of one of the images in the category Grande Arche. This category has been recently proposed for deletion under the pretext that there is no FOP in France. I believe not all the images in this category deserve to be deleted, some of them do not present copyright issues. You can express your opinion on this page Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Grande_Arche if you believe the category should stay. I noticed this deletion request after one of my images (also featured picture) belonging to this category has been proposed for deletion here. Best Regards. --Atoma 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Plant images from biolib.de
editIt is noted that you uploaded a LARGE number of images apparently sourced to www.biolib.de using User:Topjabot.
Can you for the sake of avoiding an argument forward the permission you got, to the OTRS permission queue, and get someone with access to flag the images concerned as OK.
You know they are probably Ok, the source you got them probably knows , but us mere Commons users don't.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I will, but for now I don't have time, I hope it can wait until after August 8. --213.46.83.5 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure if Kurt Stueber owns the permission :( --Gerrit (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Contact OTRS , explaining the situation. Not sure if you can do an NPG-style claim on PD work in DE. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, he has sent an e-mail to OTRS now. --Gerrit (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Contact OTRS , explaining the situation. Not sure if you can do an NPG-style claim on PD work in DE. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
|
File:Rosa sp.91.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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
A barnstar for you!
editThe Photographer's Barnstar | |
Hi!
My name is Edoardo Bit, I am an architect and also a “young researcher” of the University of Ferarra (Italy). I am writing a book on the “green walls technologies” and I have found very interesting a photo in your page. So, I would kindly ask you if I can use it in my book. Obviously, if you gently decide to grant me the permission, your name (or your nickname) and the link of the picture will be correctly cited in the credits of my publication. The photo which I would use is: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acanthus_hungaricus1.jpg
Bye, Edoardo Edoardo.bit (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Although I uploaded the photograph to Wikimedia Commons, I did not take it. The photograph is originally by Kurt Stueber, as indicated on the photo page: http://www.kurtstueber.de/ . So, I do not deserve this Barnstar... --Gerrit (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Notification
editHello, there is a de-flag proposal at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag which affects your bot. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Maps 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! |
File:Flag of Kurdistan.png 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. |
Structures 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! |