User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Archive3

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ceriagrion glabrum male on leaf.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. But a wee bit too much denoising for my taste (eyes look odd). --Dschwen 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ceriagrion glabrum male panorama.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. But a wee bit too much denoising for my taste (eyes look odd). --Dschwen 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Storm approaching.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  Question is that a mango tree? --Ianare 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Acacia tree --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Quality is good, can you add tree species info --Ianare 06:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Done --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) OK --Ianare 22:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mt Uluguru and Sisal plantations.jpg

---

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ceriagrion glabrum female.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 job. --kallerna 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pelopidas sp.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 job. --kallerna 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mt Uluguru and Sisal plantations.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 nice composition --Mbdortmund 10:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pelopidas sp.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelopidas sp.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Ceriagrion glabrum immature female.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceriagrion glabrum immature female.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Parviz Davoodi.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very good and meets VI requirements. I also added current usage and recategorized. Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parasola sp mushroom.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. --kallerna 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Unidentified Bird mikumi.jpg

Hi Muhammad - this is Lanius cabanisi - MPF (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wandering Glider Pantala flavescens.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 Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 06:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lophyra sp Tiger beetle.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 shot. --kallerna 14:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Mt Uluguru and Sisal plantations.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Uluguru and Sisal plantations.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Used image: Tortoise_closeup.jpg

Greetings, I wanted to let you know I put your image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tortoise_closeup.jpg onto my blog ( http://kapaneus.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/how-does-a-bookfeel/ ) along with credits, license and links in a footnote. Great work, keep on. Thank you. Ph.

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cow udder.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment The scope should be "Cow udder". Yann (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Udder to Cow udder --Muhammad (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Difficult decision. The appearance of cow udders depends much on the type of cow, I reckon. The typical cows, I see are the very industrialized ones with huge udders like this and actually I was tempted to favor an image like this udder being hand milked, as in general, I find it more interesting and valuable when objects are "in action", e.g., milking or a calf feeding. But the image nominated image is a good quality, no-nonse presentation of a cow udder, and the best one there is. So you get my support, although I do not personally like the GFDL 1.2 only licese you are using. --Slaunger (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cow udders.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 {{{3}}}

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lophyra sp Tiger beetle edit1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lophyra sp Tiger beetle.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Roasted Pistachio.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support It is an excellent illustration of the scope and it easily outperforms all competitors. Other criteria met. Only a pity it is licensed as GFDL 1.2 only as it makes reuse cumbersome. --Slaunger (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Do we really need a separate scope for Roasted Pistachio? Yann (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Roasted pistachios usually split open and the color of the shell changes. So, yes. --Muhammad (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. --Slaunger (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apis mellifera flying.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 nice --Mbdortmund 12:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)  Support Cool --George Chernilevsky 18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Kaaba_mirror_edit_jj.jpg

Just to let you know that I've used Media:Kaaba_mirror_edit_jj.jpg. It's not online, but I've attributed it in a footnote. I'd also like to say that your photographs are great, and keep going!--Leolisa1997 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dar es Salaam before dusk.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 It's good quality. Maedin 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Image "Camponotus sp. ant.jpg"

Hello, mi name is Felipe and usualy I works in Spanish Wikipedia.

I saw your comment in the image File:Camponotus_sp._ant.jpg and following your instructions I communicate to you that I decided to use the image in the article es:Formicidae, (a featured article deserve a featured image :-) ).

Congratulations for your big work. Greetings, --Furado (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Morogoro panorama.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 Nice. --Romanceor 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charaxes brutus natalensis with scale.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 work --George Chernilevsky 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charaxes brutus natalensis.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 Nice! QI --George Chernilevsky 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Apis mellifera flying.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apis mellifera flying.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Relicensing

Hello Muhammad. As requested I'm informing you of my re-use of your superb image of the bee with its pollen. It is at http://www.mieliestronk.com/heuningbye.html , part of an Afrikaans site for South Africa, supplying school children with free information for their school projects. Had to crop your bee pic, however, in order to enlarge the bee itself. Could you please have a look and tell me if the way in which is was cropped has your approval. Also if the credit suits you as it is. Kind regards and thanks a million, no many, many millions. Ollie from Mieliestronk.com .... mail to: dugeot AT iafrica DOT com

This kind of move removes a CC-BY-SA license from your pictures. I think you really should not do that. --Eusebius (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that and I have done as I do not like the terms of the creative commons license. --Muhammad (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not like that license. Have you read sec. 7b in the license about termination? The license is perpetual and cannot be terminated by you. I think you should reconsider - also for the other images where you have retracted the CC-BY-SA license. I would also like to bring to your attention that the inclusion of license templates in user templates, cf. User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/GFDL is explicitly not allowed on Commons, see Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. The reason being that you when they are you can change the license for files without that appearing in the file history, and that is a no go. Yes, I know, you could now mention to me that this is exactly what User:Fir0002 is doing as well, and he is even an administrator. I think that should be dealt with also. --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not retract the CC-BY-SA license from any image. What I did was merely opt out of the migration of the GFDL images I had uploaded to CC-BY-SA, which at the time of uploading, I was not aware would be released under a different license. As for the license templates, mine falls under the acceptable. --Muhammad (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But "if the user-specific template incorporates a standard license template, the user-specific template should be subst:ed in use" (a few lines below in the same page). --Eusebius (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had overlooked that the licence change was an opt-out. I am sorry about that. Regarding the inclusion of license templates in user templates, you are correct that it is allowed to have that, but as Eusebius notes that requires that you substitute your license template into your image files (which I doubt is what you want). You have transcluded the user template containing a license template. When you transclude it you have to extract the license template from the user template such that later changes in the license will be visible in the file page history. Due to the prior history with your user templates I thought you knew that already which is why I did not specify that explicitly in my first comment. I can also recommend to clearly state in your edit summaries to the file pages that you are opting out, as it is a very special allowance facilitated by the discretion of the community. --Slaunger (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology not required. Including the license in the template is much simpler for me. And now after the prior license mixup, many admins will have my templates in their watchlists so probably nothing will go unnoticed. --Muhammad (talk)

If you want your case to be an example of a case, where an exception to the policy is warranted, I think you should work for the acceptance of exceptions on the policy talk page instead of making a point in explicitly not following the policy.. It may be convenient for you, but it is not very transparent for the users using your images that the license is "hidden" away in a user template. If you are concerned about the actual work required for replacing occurrences of

{{User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/GFDL}}

with

{{self|GFDL|migration=opt-out}}
{{User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/GFDL}}

synchronized with a removal of the license template from your user template, I will gladly help you find a bot operator, which can do these replacements for you. that will also make it explicit in every file page that you have actively and timely indicated that you want to opt-out from the license migration. --Slaunger (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find my current method more comfortable because if I were to upload images in the future with my GFDL template then I would have to remember to add a separate license tag and I find all that cumbersome. Thanks for the offer though --Muhammad (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(indets reset) Forgive for being slightly amused by that last post, my dear cumbersome and absent-minded Muhammad . There is a way you can do this, where you follow the book, and where you only need to remember one thing (which seems like a requirement for you), and where you only substitute templates to an absolute minimum. The idea is a follows: You create a new user template, e.g., User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/boilerplate as a copy of your User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/GFDL but where you replace the hardcoded license with, e.g., some code, which lets you take a license and some optional migration parameter in, e.g., {{self|{{{license|}}}|migration={{{migration|}}}}}. Next, you replace User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/GFDL with

{{User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/boilerplate|license=GFDL|migration=opt-out}}

Now you will see it is easy to also make variants of this for other licenses, e.g., if you wanted to make a {{WTFPL}} variant you could define a new template, e.g., User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/WTFPL as

{{User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/boilerplate|license=WTFPL}}

thus reusing your boilterplace text and formatting.

Now you would have to type six more characters when specify your user license, as you would have to specify

{{subst:User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/GFDL}}

This would only expand the first level in the template to

{{User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/boilerplate|license=GFDL|migration=opt-out}}

in the image page, which has the great advantage that you have explicitly specified the license used and that you are using the opt-out and you still have the possibility to maintain your boilerplate text centrally. Now in principle you could abuse this, by changing the boilerplate implementation such that it ignored the specified argument and replaced out by some other license. But I think this could be accepted as "good enough".

Now, this does not work out of the box for the template you have now, because the wikiformatted table you have right now ruins the argument parsing when transcluded (I troed toying a little bit with it in my sandbox, but I would need some tweaking, and I do not want to waste my time on that in case you do want to do it that way). However, I could help you making it work if you wanted to.

Once that is done your existing treanscluded /GFDL should be subst'ed on the file pages.

But in any event you have to do something. Right now you are not following community policy. You can either

1. Deal with it yourself
2. Accept some assistance to make it work in an almost transcluded manner
3. Work on changing the policy, such that it accepted to transclude user templates with embedded license templates
4. Convince the community to make an exception in your case ()
5. We could raise the issue on COM:AN to hear if this is policy which should be taken seriously or not.

Just leaning back and do nothing is not an option in my opinion.

Best wishes,

--Slaunger (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• A familiar sounding proposal. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• These types of templates are being used by many other users other than me such as Ram-man, Fir0002, Noodle, and Benjamin. I think it would be best if you could raise your concerns at COM:AN and notify all of the template users (us and others whom I may not have mentioned) about the discussion. But IMO the excuse of abusing the teplates does not hold because all of these templates are on administrator watch lists and any changes made do not go unnoticed and can be reverted. --Muhammad (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  You mentioned Noodle snacks (whom I can see is also following the thread). From the few examples I have seen it appears to me that Noodle does not have the license template included in a transcluded user template. Thus, it appears to me that what Noodle does is in compliance with the Commons policy. Am I missing something? (If you see this, Noodle snacks you might as well reply for yourself) --Slaunger (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  The user templates by Ram-Man do not transclude license templates either. --Slaunger (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  My mistake. Sorry, Noodle and Ram-man. --Muhammad (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with you that you should not be singled out, if this user license practise is used by several (and valuable) users. So much more is the need to settle once and for all if a policy change is warranted, or the users transcluding user templates with embedded license templates should adjust their procedures (and existing file pages). In hope you can see the point in doing that. I will raise the issue at COM:AN as you suggest and also notice the users you have mentioned. I am aware of one more user, to whom this discussion applies. I do not know how to find the others? However, as it is my impression that this practise is very much based on users inheriting the template and methology of other users, I guess some of the affected users here could spread the word as well. Anyway to debate the issue the users you mention should be more than enough to represent the the transclude-user-templates-containing-license-templates users. I am interested in having a balanced discussion, and to introduce it in a balanced way at COM:AN and I will do my utmost to do that. --Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Muhammad, I have drafted a post, which I intend to post at COM:AN on User:Slaunger/Sandbox/COM:AN message. I would like you check if you feel that is a fair and balanced representation of this issue. Make reasonable changes to the existing text if you feel it is relevant. Please do not add any lengthy discussion to the post yet, as I'd rather wait with that until it is posted officially. I will also contact the three other users I mention explicitly before I make the post, such that they get a chance to review it before it is posted and add relevant factual details not there already. Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Digon3, User:Ehquionest, User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, User:MichaelMaggs, User:Malene, are some other users who also follow the same procedure. I think you should notify them as well. --Muhammad (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for telling me. I will notify them as you suggest. I think at least two those users are inactive, but I'll give it a try. --Slaunger (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    I think I have dealt with all of them now. Their templates have been added, and I have notified them all on their official preferred media talk here, there or e-mail. How did you figure out those users did it the same way? You just knew? Now, I'll just wait. Yeah i know you are probably not overly enthusiastic as to what I am about to do. I guess you would rather prefer status quo? Anyway, I think and hope we can find a reasonable solution. Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, I am pretty much satisfied with how things are at the moment. Just a head up though if you decide to use a bot, last time it was used on my images, the pages were cluttered with wikilanguage. As to how I figured out, I went trough a list of some of commons finest photographers and there you have it. I fund a couple more right now here as well but won't bother you to update the proposal anymore. I would appreciate if you could let me know when you put it up. --Muhammad (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    OK, I think doing it in a more graceful manner than the last time your templates were substituted is quite crucial given the large number of files affected. Thanks for telling me how you found the users and for the heads up. I don't know if you noticed, but I updated my proposal such that I recommend that we do this more elegantly then merely by substituting. I will tell you when I put it on. Have a pleasant evening in Tanzania. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Morogoro panorama.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morogoro panorama.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Charaxes brutus natalensis.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charaxes brutus natalensis.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Use of Kaaba_mirror_edit.jpg

Salam Alaikum,

I am writing to inform you that I have used your image File:Kaaba_mirror_edit.jpg on my site http://this-is-islam.co.uk/node/42 with a link to the original picture on wikimedia.org. I am very impressed by this and many of your other photographs, and would like to congratulate you on them. Thank You.

You're welcome and thanks for the compliments. According to the license, you have to attribute the image to me in a prominent location near the image. Please take care of that. --Muhammad (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Canna sp.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canna sp.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

License

I'm sorry about this Muhammad, nothing personal meant. I updated my votes/comments on the three nominations for consistency. Regards Lycaon (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you - the man actually said he was sorry! BTW your images are getting better and better every day. Great work! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

These are beautiful, amazing pictures. Thank you for sharing them with us. Filceolaire (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for the compliments. --Muhammad (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

License follow up

Jambo Muhammad. Though I haven't changed my viewpoint on the issue, I have stricken my comment on your image. I have to agree with Ram-Man that FPC is not the place to raise this type of issues. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Argiope sp.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Argiope sp.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

May I please ask you to take one more look at the FP nomination ?

Hi, Muhammad, by suggestion of user Maedin I added the original image to that nomination. May I please ask to review the image? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Alopochen aegyptiacus

Hi Muhammad - your pic is Alopochen aegyptiacus - MPF (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hans Meyer memorial.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 QI. Location would be useful. --Iotatau 09:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hans Meyer memorial.jpg

File:Hans Meyer memorial.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!

Sorry about this, but per the discussion on the en-wiki FPC, the copyright status needs to be evaluated, at the least. -Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Image re-use

Hello, Muhammad

I have used your picture of a honey bee to illustrate a post about those insects. You can check it out at www.ecologiablog.com, but I'm afraid it is in Spanish. Of course, your credits are there.

Hi Muhammad,

if you can find out which image this guy actually is talking of (and where excatly it is used), could you please put the published-template ( {{published| author= |date= |url= |title= |org= |legal= }} ) on its talkpage. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its used here, a picture of a flying honey bee. I am afraid I don't have all the details to use the template. --Muhammad (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've recorded this use on the image talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad, I removed cat:Islam from File:-Ammar Nakshawani Portrait.jpg because cat:Muslim Scholars is already a subcat to Islam. --Túrelio (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Muhammad,

I would like to let you know that I would like to use your Drosophila picture in my poster for a Scientific conference. I am a graduate student in Rice University and I really like your superb pictures. All the best.

George Huang

Dear Muhammad,

I have used your photo of a stingless bee (Meliponula ferruginea) for an information sheet to be used in conjunction with school workshops covering rainforest topics at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. This image appears on one sheet, and full credit is attributed to you clearly on the page. Thank you for the lovely photo.

Kind Regards, Amber Waite - Schools and Families Learning Programme Leader, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Thank you for taking such wonderful pictures.