User talk:Woudloper

Image:Sokullupasa.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.--Orgullomoore 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I removed the template. The file is under GNU license as far as I can see. It came from the English wikipedia where its license was no problem either. It is an artwork from the 16th century. Woudloper 12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't user "self" when you're actually not the author

Hello Woudloper! Please be very careful when copying images that were made by other users, and don't claim that you made the images by yourself, if it's not true. And please do always give the correct license, not just any license tag. For changes see e.g. [1] or [2]. Greetings --Überraschungsbilder 00:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Woudloper 12:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Louis Dollo.JPG

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis Dollo.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.

The author of the image has to be dead for over 70 years, so the rule right now is, that if the author is unknown the image should be over 100 years old to be pd-old -- Gorgo 12:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who the author was, but the picture shows Dollo about 40 years old. In that case (1897) the picture must be over 100 years old. Of course I cannot be totally sure, but it seems a safe assumption to me. Woudloper 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Osiyan1 photo wiki.jpg

I noticed that you copied this image from the current file on the English Wikipedia. The problem is that on en.wikipedia, this image is tagged as "GFDL presumed". A user there believed in good faith that this image has been created by the uploader who, by uploading it to Wikipedia, had released it under the GNU Free Documentation License. However, this currently cannot be used here at the Commons without a clear, specific, definite license and therefore is currently tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more carefully

... when moving images from a Wikipedia to Commons. en:Image:Riverbeasatmandi.jpg -> Image:Riverbeasatmandi.jpg was missing the image history and creator, and even the license tag was wrong. Please use the CommonsHelper for future moves. --32X 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK sure. I found deducing from the original which licence to apply rather hard. I persumed GNU falls under GDFL, because i saw the option: "GDFL-content from the English wikipedia" and didn't think further. I changed my ways... At the moment I copy-paste the file history under the template and try to follow the original tags. Btw cheers for the link! Woudloper 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images from Nethelands

Hello, OK, transfer images by yourselves, please, and let me know and I will categorize them if necessary. I do not understand Netherlands language. Thank you for your help. I think that You can add them scientific name only with the number as it is on this image. --Snek01 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Esther Hess

Sorry, but it is a photo of my film about (and with) Esther HESS,scultor. It is my photo and the lady is Esther HESS.

best regards

--Pantalaskas 16:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Cycle Diagram

Hello. Is it possible to add the sources you used for each individual image in your diagram Image:Rockcycle.jpg to the image description page. --ZeWrestler 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but that was really a long time ago and I don't remember which pictures I used. Probably most or some can be found on commons, others (especially those depicting rocks) may be from my own camera. Woudloper 16:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gavel.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Gavel.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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--belg4mit

Image Tagging Image:Ferdinand_Hochstetter_Geograph.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ferdinand_Hochstetter_Geograph.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. Code·is·poetry 13:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Code is Poetry! As you can see I am not the original uploader of this image, so I cannot specify where I got it from except as far as I have done already: it comes from the German wikipedia.

Even then I would think this picture is safely assunmed to be in the public domain: it would be 70 years after the death of the maker. Since the person in this picture died in 1884 I think the copyright on it has expired. To be sure, ask the uploader. Best regards, Woudloper 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The file at german wikipedia basically has no source, no author, no year given. Regards, Code·is·poetry 08:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:UniBern1909.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:UniBern1909.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. Jodo 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token b2f682b2fc80f705e76929e3808b1a5a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Image Tagging Image:Botany_Barnstar2.png

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Botany_Barnstar2.png. 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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. -Nard 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Louis_Dollo.JPG

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis_Dollo.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. -Nard 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Rockcycle.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rockcycle.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. -Nard 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Botany_Barnstar2.png

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Botany_Barnstar2.png. 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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. Rocket000(talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alfred_Wegener.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Alfred_Wegener.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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Teofilo (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:010331neu.png

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:010331neu.png. 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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. abf /talk to me/ 16:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ 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 ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Woudloper!

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]]

[[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.

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christmas Barnstar.png is uncategorized since 27 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rounding & sphericity EN.svg is uncategorized since 29 March 2009.
Image:Sorting in sediment.svg is uncategorized since 1 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb white.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb pink.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb dark green.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb black.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb red.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb purple.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb blue.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb brown.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb ochre.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Crystal Clear app personal KAb orange.png is uncategorized since 14 April 2009.
Image:Richard Owen -1892.jpg was uncategorized on 26 September 2009.

Re Extinct taxa

copied form user talk:Kevmin

Hi Kevmin, could you please refrain from removing lithostratigraphic categorization from fossil images? Maybe you're a biologist, and only consider taxonimic classification important, but from the viewpoint of geology/palaeontology it really matters from which age, or rather, stage a fossil came. It would be great if every fossil picture had at least one stratigraphic category. When I write articles I find it very hard to find pictures to illustrate cause most of them are only in a taxonomic category. And taxonomy of fossils can be a rather disputed area with a lot of uncertainties, so the solid looking categorization on commons is a bit deceptive too.

Ideally, the category would be "Triassic fossils" of course, but in the absence of such a category I put pictures often in the category of the age ("Triassic") instead. If that bothers you please create the subcategory "<age name> fossils". Thanks, Woudloper (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

end of copied message

Hi Woudloper, On each image which I have remove I have tried to plage the taxonomic cat, EG genus, family etc. in to a cat for period cat also, For example see the Subcats I have created or the Category:Triassic all grouped in Category:Triassic animals. This seemes easier the ntrying to tagg every image that comes in with an age cat. As long as it makes it into the approriate taxonomic cat, it will be linked into the age cat also. By the way I am training to be a Paleontologist. --Kevmin (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but I don't agree. From a stratigraphic point of view, a category with fossils of a certain age is needed. I'm afraid hybrid categories combining an age with a taxon do not solve the problem. They make the image unfindable for a stratigrapher without fore-knowledge (such as myself, as palaeontology is not my speciality). Besides, a fossil is not necessarily an animal, it is not even necessarily a dead organism. Woudloper (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you are wanting. What I have been doing is the exact same as what was happening before just with the taxonomic categories rather then sporadic images. As clarification, "fossils" are just organisms, the preserved remains of organisms. Marks made by organisms are not fossils but Trace fossils. It will be easy enough to create, for example, Category:Eocene Platnaceae, Category:Permian Ginkgoaceae, etc.--Kevmin (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on the trace fossils. What I mean is this: there are people out there that search for images on a different classification system, a classification on rock strata, instead of on taxonomy. If you put a fossil in a category like "Eocene Platnaceae", they become impossible to find unless you have taxonomic fore-knowledge. If the cat "Eocene fossils" becomes too large, you should create pure lithostratigraphic subdivisions instead of hybrids, for example "Ypresian fossils". Woudloper (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think a clarification of terminology is needed. As an American paleontologist when I here/see the term Lithographic I think Pierre shale, Klondike Mountain Formation, Green River Formation. When I here/see Temporal I think, Eocene, Ypresian, Cretaceous, etc... When I see the term fossil I think only of preserved remains of life. When I see extinct I not only think fossil, I think illustrations, diagrams etc... As for what you want It is already there. Category:Cretaceous has the subcategory Category:Cretaceous animals which has the subcategories for dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, ammonites, mammals etc. If all the individual media in Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs alone was simply tagged as Category:Cretaceous, the category would be overwhelmed, let alone all the other animals which qualify, because you cant just tag the fossils you also should tag the illustrations, the diagrams the locality photographs, and so on. This way all one has to do is go the the appropriate starting cat (Cretaceous, Eocene, Silurian) and navigate down from there without the main cats being overwhelmed with images.--Kevmin (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I mean. An animal is not a fossil. What I want is not a lithostratigraphic category, but a chronostratigraphic category. So a category that has every picture in it of rock strata of a certain age. This does not include artist impressions of dinosaurs or other drawings, which have no geologic meaning. It includes fossils, but also pictures of the strata themselves, trace fossils, volcanic deposits, etc etc. Ypresian is not just an age, a denotation of time, it is also a set of strata deposited during that time: a stage. Woudloper (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is already accomplished by the categories such as Category:Eocene, Category:Silurian. I understand that it may seem easier just to have everything in one enormous category per age but it doesn't work in the long run, the categories will get too the point where there are too many images to make browsing them useful. I am moving the animal images to subcategories to keep these parent categories manageable. ALL of the images are STILL there you just have to look at the appropriate subcategory, animal, location, geography what have you. It really isn't right to have the fossils in these categories and not the illustrations based on the fossils, so I created the subcats. I'm not sure why this is creating such a dilemma??--Kevmin (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there are that many pictures of fossils per age. Do you know a stage (so not a series or system) that has more than 20 images? Why is it "really not right" to have fossils and drawings separated?

The dilemma is, that if you call the category "Eocene Platnaceae", the things become impossible to find for people that don't know the taxonomic tree and names. This is a categorisation that is useful for a biologist, but not for a stratigrapher, who wants to find all things found in a certain stratum. Woudloper (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrations should be just as included as they are pictorial representations of those very fossils you are interested in and the creators of those images are just as apt to categorize them by age also so it is not logical or possible to have one without the other. --Kevmin (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your answer I see you still don't understand the problem. Please accept there are people out there who use fossils not for taxonomy or paleontology, but for stratigraphic purposes. They use fossils together with a range of other features of rocks to come to certain geological conclusions. A drawing of an animal is no use for stratigraphy so it should not be included in a stratigraphic category. Its place should be the category of its taxon. Woudloper (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the fossil images as presented on commons do not have enough data to be of use for stratigraphic purposes. The illustrations have just as much reason to be included in those categories as the fossils, as there people who will look for images from a specific age to include in Wikipedia articles and want illustrations just as much as fossils. If you include the fossil images in common from just 6 dinosaur genera of the Cretaceous in the Category:Cretaceous that is an increase of 88! images. From just 6! genera. category: Cretaceous dinosaurs currently has 137 genera included in it. The influx of all of the images would make Cat:Cretaceous unusable just due to the number of images. I m sorry but I will continue to Create subcategories for taxa that are age specific and included in the parent age categories.--Kevmin (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have no problem with Category:Ordovician fossils or Category:Carboniferous fossils, they seem to be what you are asking for, please continue to create and add to these categories.--Kevmin (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the hybrid categories, I just want to emphasise that for stratigraphers, a stratigraphy-only categorisation is necessary. An image can have more than one category. If Cretaceous is too large, and I can imagine it is, then we should subdivide it into categories for the stages. I don't think there will be too many pictures in a "category:Tortonian". Woudloper (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eotyrannus_-1.jpg

File:Eotyrannus_-1.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Owen.JPG

Hi, I noticed that you uploaded this image to English Wikipedia in June 2006 and later transferred to Commons in August of the same year. I want to question whether there's a possibility of copyfraud because the image is already in public domain due to its age and could be used freely (meeting the first bulleted point in the definition of copyfraud) OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably used the wrong license then. Please feel free to adjust it. I was a newbee in 2006 and didn't understand the meaning of it all. Regards, Woudloper (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, done. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kimberlite picture.jpg

Hi Woudloper, do you remember where this piece of kimberlite is from? There are only a couple of diamond mines that have ever operated in the United States, so if you even know which state it came from, that would narrow it down a lot. Cheers, - Gump Stump (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gump, I've been deperately trying to find out, since it is such a good sample/example. It was in the collection of my geological institute. Its owner told me an American geologist gave it to him, but couldn't remember the location (mine) it came from. In fact the rock contains diamonds, though I couldn't find any with my loupe at the surface of this particular piece. I'm sorry that's all I can say. Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for responding. You would have been very very lucky to find any diamonds on the surface of the sample, but you do have to check! - Gump Stump (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map-punjab-spate4.jpg

File:Map-punjab-spate4.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

—innotata 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wax figures in the United States

Wax figures in the United States 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 gallery, 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.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Wknight94 ^talk 01:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File: Cratons West Gondwana.svg

Could u tell me which source did u use for this image? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I can't tell you exactly, since I used maps from about ten different sources. Some were scientific publications, others were books. Unfortunately not all agreed with each other, so I had to make some choices. The map was only meant for an overview: it is not complete and will surely contains mistakes. Especially in East Africa, there are some cratonic fragments I chose to omit since they are pretty small.

If you see a particularly obvious error or omission, please tell me. In that case I will try to adjust the figure.

Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thx. I really do not know, it seems ok for me. But it seems there is an Arequipa–Antofalla craton. I'm not sure though. Have to read a bit. --81.63.101.97 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true. There are many small cratons not on the map. Often they are considered parts of larger ones. I couldn't include all, I had to make some choices. Regards, Woudloper (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell u that ur Amazonian craton is not good so, I think. There is the Guiana Shield and the Brazilian Shield. Between them there is a lineament: the Galapagos, the en:Carnegie Ridge, the en:Amazon River estuary and trench, St. Paul trench, en:Romanche Trench, en:Niger River estuary, Benue Trench (Gansser, Augusto (1973). "Orogene Entwicklung in den Anden, im Himalaja und den Alpen: ein Vergleich". Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 66: 23-40.). Email me if you want the two PDFs. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you a mail then. I can read the Eclogae Helvetiae in our library, but pdf will be faster. I hope you're aware of the difference between shields and cratons? Woudloper (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, (plattform + shield = craton?), maybe ur version is better and 1973 is not recent enough. Have to find a better ref. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For example: the Brazilian shield has the São Francisco, Río Apa and Río de la Plata cratons. There is something strange with the Amazonian craton - as far as I understood it is spread over two shields. This craton was the Proterozoic continent of Amazonia. It was part of the supercontinent Rodinia between 1000 and 750 Ma. With the break-up of Rodinia, a large rift developed through the continental crust of Amazonia: the Amazonian trench. Today this structure separates the Guyanan and Brazilian shields and runs straight through the Amazonian craton. Note: the Amazonian trench is right below the current Amazonian Basin. This is probably not coincidence, but the Neoproterozoic rift is not the same as the Cenozoic basin. To sum it up: as far as I understand, the southern part of former Amazonia is considered part of the Brazilian shield, the northern part is seen as part of the Guyanan shield.

Thanks for the papers you sent me. I think they don't contradict the above. Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, See Figure 19. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good website! Thx, Woudloper (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me were did u get the map with the continental shelf? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anymore, but I probably took a picture from an old course handout. The location of the continental shelfs is no big secret, every good atlas can be used as a source. There are many interesting maps and reconstructions on the internet too: [3], [4], [5]. Woudloper (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just found that the book Press et al. (2003, 4th ed.) Understanding Earth (recommended to first year students here) contains a picture quite similar to my own one, on page 24. It is different in that it shows Europe and North America too. If you can't find the book, I can send you a scan. Woudloper (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, r u not afraid to get copyright violation problems this way? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I use the work of others of course, but I combine things and/or remove things. And some knowledge like the outline of continents and shelves is so common that nobody can be sued for incorporating it in a new work. When I draw coast lines for example, I use existing maps as a templates, but I could have used any map so I don't see the problem. Woudloper (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, what software do u use? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use inkscape for SVGs. For other images I use Photoshop. Woudloper (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Europa

Would u like to throw in ur 2 cents on en:Armorican terrane? The generation of the european mainland and the Alpine orogeny/Geology of the Alps is complicated. Is it not possible to improve the overview? The Armorican Massif, the Armorican terrane, the Iberian plate (with Iberian Peninsula but also Corsica, Sardinia, the Balearic Islands, and the Briançonnais zone) and the other massifs/plates should have a category and a template. Any better ideas? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I threw in a dime or so. See en:Talk:Armorican terrane. Regards, Woudloper (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Translation in italian

Hi im an italian user. I'm trying to translate some files in my mother language, using Inkscape 0.47. I'm a beginner graphic, so something was wrong with editing: some black squares appeared upside text. Another problem is licence: i select "a derivative work of a file from Commons" and try uploaded file without "derivativeFX", but something wrong so i used "basic upload form", probably uncvorrectly cause i was unable to cite both source and Author. Should tou take a look at this

and suggest me some things to upload a new version of file? Thank you some much and congratulations for your good work there. PS: I apologize for my bad english, i hope you understanded the most. :-P Ciaurlec (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ciaurlec, no apologies needed. Your English is fine.

In Inkscape, you should select the text box, then "convert to text" (in the English version of Inkscape). If you don't do this, the text boxes become black. I think you solved this problem already yourself, because the image has no black boxes any more.

Something is wrong with derivativeFX - since a couple of months. I have problems with it too.

I added my user name in the author field. I think your translation is correct, but my Italian is not very good. Thanks for translating!

Regards, Woudloper (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you was editing at the same time .... I solved with rectangles but i still need help for adding right info on attribution, do you have some ideas? ThanksCiaurlec (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, i will probably contact you again, cause i want to translate the files relative to Hercynian fold belt too. Have a nice day!Ciaurlec (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011-03 Iapetus fossil evidence

Bonjour. Dans les descriptions de File:Iapetus fossil evidence EN.svg et File:Iapetus fossil evidence NL.svg, vous avez indiqué deux livres. Pouvez vous indiquer des chapitres ou des numéros de pages ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:GautamiPutraSatakarni.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:GautamiPutraSatakarni.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:GautamiPutraSatakarni.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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guru_Har_Rai.jpg

File:Guru_Har_Rai.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arunachal bird 4.jpg

File:Arunachal bird 4.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arunachal bird 1.jpg

File:Arunachal bird 1.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arunachal bird 2.jpg

File:Arunachal bird 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 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arunachal bird 3.jpg

File:Arunachal bird 3.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arunachal bird 5.jpg

File:Arunachal bird 5.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arunachal bird 6.jpg

File:Arunachal bird 6.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arunachal hornbill.jpg

File:Arunachal hornbill.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MPF (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abruzzi on Chogolisa.jpg

File:Abruzzi on Chogolisa.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Awesome Rockness

Clock Creator

Hi! My name is Indira and I'm a student at Princeton University. I'm currently working on a project on the formation of Cyprus. For the report, I would love to create a specific-to-Cyprus geological timeline clock like the one you created (File:Geologic_clock.jpg). Could you please help me with that? I understand completely if you don't want me infringing on your artistic rights or if you're too busy, etc... Please let me know!

Thank you so much for your time, - Indira Kissoondyal '16 Indira159 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indira,

Thank you for your interest in my work. I do not mind when people use my work, as long as they refer to either me (nick or real name) or Wikimedia Commons.

How can I help you? Can you explain me what sort of image you have in mind?

The geological time scale is quite standardized internationally nowadays. If you want to make something more exclusively for Cyprus, I presume it is something resembling a stratigraphic column? Woudloper (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Licencing and The Highland Boundary Fault

I have used 2 maps from Wiki on an album. One of the maps is yours, on a Share A Like licence. Although the album was released a month ago, the maps have been on since yesterday. Your map came out a bit different. Are you happy with the licence? Would you prefer an alternate attribution?

It might interest you that about a couple of years ago I dreamed that The Highland Boundary Fault was major and (it was what was in your map except it was The Highland Boundary Fault). That was definately before I had seen your map or any such map. In the dream, if you followed the Highland Boundary Fault it was also the San Andreas, it went up around Norway (splitting in The North Sea as in your map), along north of Russia and was capable of giving Britain an earthquake as big as the San Andreas. Orphadeus (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orphadeus, thanks for the notification. The red fault line actually does not go all the way around North America to California, because California did not exist yet in those times. But it was certainly once able to cause huge earthquakes. :-)

This type of map was not readily available yet for a wider public, that's why I created it. There obviously was a demand for it, since it is now used in several Wikipedias. But it's nice to hear it's used by people in the real world too, in whatever way.

You can refer to 'Woudloper, Wikimedia' as the creator. That's good enough for me. Woudloper (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. Its an interesting young area of science. Most people in Britain are under the impression of no major faults. The dream said Britain was geographically quite stable now and there would be a build up of pressure on Britain in 500 years. Orphadeus (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pegmatite body.JPG

Hello,

I added a category to your photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pegmatite_body.JPG

I notice that the descriptive text for the photo does not include any details of its location or age. If you can remember the location and age of the outcrop, perhaps you could add these details to the descriptive text, please? Even the name of the country would add value. GeoWriter (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Woudloper (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GeoWriter (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geologic clock

Hello:

I am Blanca from Mexico, I am an undergraduate teacher and I would like to use your geologic clock for one on-line course in Mexico. But I would like to translate to spanish and also want to know what is the correct way to give you the credits for the image.

Thank you

Hello Blanca,

You can refer to Woudloper at Wikimedia Commons, or otherwise to my real name. In the last case: please send me an e-mail - you can do that by going to my user page, then using the option "send an e-mail" in the left sidebar. Woudloper (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

photo credit

Hi there, I will be using some of your great geology photo content in an educational book. I normally reference photo's to the original persons name. e.g. photo by joe bloggs.

What name would you like to be accredited for your photo's?

thanks in advance Dougal

photo credit

what name should i credit your photo's to? would like to use a couple in a geology book.

Hello!

I'd like to help you, but please send me an e-mail. Woudloper (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest Srinagar November 2010.jpg

File:Protest Srinagar November 2010.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Shrikanthv (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest Srinagar November 2010.jpg

File:Protest Srinagar November 2010.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Green Giant (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Arunachal flower 2.jpg

And also:

Geology map of Wales and SW England

Wouldloper

Whilst the 'Geologic map of Wales and SW England' (your 'own work' as you state) is welcome, I'm looking for assurance that it meets Wikimedia's copyright obligations. You state a number of sources on which it is based, all of which seem to be copyrighted material. Wikimedia images can of course be used by third parties under the Creative Commons license and a third party has asked me (knowing I'm a Wikipedia editor) if they might be able to make use of it, or a modification of it, in a commercial publication, hence this enquiry to you.

P.S. the label on Anglesey in the north should be 'Monian Terranes' rather than 'Morian'.

thanks Geopersona (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geopersona,

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I'll change it as soon as possible.

The copyright situation around these maps (I drew several) is complex, and although I don't claim to have absolute legal certainty I believe they are - legally - my own creation. For sources I mostly used publications (maps, others) of the official geological surveys (in this case the British one). These sources are copyrighted because in the UK (as in other European countries) publications of the government are unfortunately not automatically PD (as in the US). Sources older than 70 or 100 years are so outdated that they would not be very useful.

The following were my considerations:

My maps are simplifications of the information in the sources. By simplifying I altered the original information. I am not sure if that counts as an "original creation" yet, but it is not the same as copying. It is more similar to summarising a text, which is what I often do when I write for Wikipedia.
Merging the information of several publications made the map my own creation. As far as I remember, in this case one of the sources has been used predominantly. Where sources differed on details, it made sense to use the official maps of the survey to judge.
The position of most outcrops and faults is common knowledge, comparable with the position of - for example - a coastline or a city on a topographic map. The outcrops on the maps can not only be found in the sources I cited, but probably in hundreds of publications about the geology of southern England and Wales.

I have read the opinions of legal experts about Wikimedia content before, and the bottom line seems to be that we can't be entirely sure about anything related to copyright as long as there hasn't been a case in court. But I feel confident that the maps are legally my own work and as such it was my right to publish them under a free license. For real legal advice it may be interesting to ask an expert. I would like to hear what they had to say.

Regards, Woudloper (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing

Hello! I'm a cultural producer from Brazil, currently working on an exhibition about nature. For one of the panels for the exhibition, I would like to use an image created by you, of the Great American Biotic Interchange. How would it work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatianetmadai (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tatianetmadai,

I know which image.

The easiest way to accredit it is with: 'Woudloper, Wikimedia'.

Or if you like, send me an e-mail and I'll tell you my real name, then you can use that.

Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caledonides EN.svg

File:Caledonides EN.svg 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scotland metamorphic zones EN.svg

Hi Woudloper, would like to use the excellent Scotland metamorphic zones EN.svg in a teaching book. how would you prefer to be credited?

best Dougal

--Dougalearth (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougal,

Sure! Can you send me an email about this? The option "Email this user" is in the menu at the left side of the page.

Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Gupta Empire 400 A.D.

Hi I have seen that you have uploaded maps of Gupta empire (375 A.D. and 450 A.D.) on Wikipedia. Could you provide me a map for Gupta empire in 400 A.D (under Chandragupta ii at its peak) along with its influence (Vakataka dynasty)? Regards Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for your interest in my work.

I created maps for 375 and 450, mostly because the year 400 does not represent a major shift in the balances of power. The 375 map shows the result of Samudragupta's expedition to the south, where he famously conquered lands as far as Kanchipuram. I did not find any conclusive sources, but it seemed likely to me that Gupta influence over the Pallavas was brief and long lost by the time of Chandragupta II's conquests. Maybe it lasted a few decades at best. Unable to find details in the literature, I concluded that nobody knows. So I decided not to draw any maps for an interval of 75 years, which includes the complete reign of Chandragupta II. My 450 map represents the high mark of the Guptas, including Chandragupta II's conquests to the west. Although it is possible that south (Pallavas) and west (Kshatrapas) were both part of the empire during a short interval of time, I don't think it is very likely.

A big issue I encountered when I drew the maps is the nature of "influence" over local rulers: were the Guptas recognized as overlord merely in name, or was there a tribute, and if so was it paid once or regularly? In many cases, the local rulers may have stayed in power without a change in day-to-day politics - after paying a one-time bribe. Whether the Gupta ruler had control over his subject kings is not a binary issue. Instead there was a range of possibilities, and it is not entirely clear to what extend local kingdoms in the outer periphery were part of the empire or not. In my maps I show this ambiguity by not colouring in the lands further from the core regions of the empire (Magadha, Mathura, Malwa).

If you know trustworthy and recent sources that state otherwise or have more precise information about the chronology of events, I would be very happy if you let me know.

Regards, Woudloper (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some information which might help you. Have a look please;

(1) Gupta Empire reached its zenith under the rule of Chandragupta II thus he must have held control over the maximum territorial extent ever attained by the Gupta Empire.

(2) Recently new articles of Gupta-Hunnic Wars have been created on Wikipedia which contain info about Chandragupta II's northwestern conquest (356-399 A.D.) you could see that and get sources from there.

(3) As far as influence is concerned Chandragupta II must have had influence in Vakataka dynasty and Kuntala country. This can be testified with sources i am mentioning here;

Chandragupta II expanded his influence and ruled over the Kuntala region of Karnataka through his marriage to a Kadamba princess, and during his daughter Prabhavatigupta’s 20 years long regency (390-410), he effectively integrated the southern Vakataka kingdom into the Gupta [6]https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/A_History_of_India/RoW9GuFJ9GIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA91&printsec=frontcover

[7]https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.107941/mode/2up (this one for Kuntala region)

So, I asked a map circa 400 A.D. which could include his conquests too apart from his father and you could shade the vakataka territory and label it as Gupta influence in the map (similarly Kuntala one too).

Regards Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Sure, and Kulke & Rothermund used very similar words. If "zenith" is defined as maximal territorial extend, the reign of Chandragupta II saw the empire at its zenith. Most sources make the heyday of the Guptas last until the rule of Skandagupta and the invasions of the Hunas (Kidarites) and Pushyamitra revolt/war (around 460). This makes sense because northern India experienced the better part of a century of relative stability and prosperity (380-460). Culturally, socially and economically the zenith is better defined in other terms - for example when did the school of Sarnath fully develop its specific style? Such different zeniths may not necessarily coincide, but they likely show overlap.

(2) Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. Even in case Wikipedia could be considered as a source, the article itself has an editorial template on it claiming there are "multiple issues". For example the template says there is a "lack of focus". Seeing a map for which the only purpose seems to be to show the location of the Narmada river, I have to agree. On first sight and without reading, I also see that multiple works from the Victorian/colonial age were used as source. This may or may not point to a lack of critical selection skills on the part of the writer. Heuristics are an important skill in historical research. Moreover, when sources are over 100-150 years old, the insights presented can hardly qualify as "new". There is a big risk that information has since been discarded or repudiated by historians. So a writer has to know the historiography very well when selecting such sources. In the case of Wikipedia we can sadly not be certain they did.

(3a - Vakatakas) Kulke & Rothermund wrote in 2004 but I still consider them a good general source. Even so, note that not every assertion in their book is supported by later writers. For example, Kulke & Rothermund strongly suggest that the Huna invaders in India were the same people as the Huns who drove the Goths from the Volga region in Europe. This assumption was common a few decades ago, but is contradicted by more recent works. As for the Vakatakas, based solely on Kulke & Rothermund it is okay to show the Vakataka kingdom as hatched to indicate Gupta influence in a map, at least for the period ca. 380-419. But the issue of the Pallavas keeps me from creating a 400 map - at least for the moment. Also, it is unclear how far Gupta influence over the Vakataka kingdom went. Compare: modern day India has various amounts of political influence over Bangladesh and Bhutan, but in political maps these countries are normally not shown as "India-influenced". Kulke & Rothermund only gave an overview of Indian history. I would feel more confident if I had more specific sources for the nature of Gupta-Vakataka political unity, if they exist.

(3b - Kuntala) Kulke & Rothermund do not mention Kuntala or an alignment between the Kadambas and Guptas. I guess your source for this is the collection of reports from 1886-1903. I don't want to base my work on colonial age, mostly primary sources. If you know of modern works (>2010) that cite this information, please let me know!

Regards, Woudloper (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) You could refer to this map,

[8]https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/pager.html?object=182

The maps you created for 375 and 450 A.D. clearly shows that Samudragupta did not have Taxila, etc. (Punjab, parts of Afghanistan) and Kumargupta I didn't have southern parts conquered by Samudra but the above map (link I provided) shows that Gupta empire at its peak stretched from Oxus valley in north west to Kanchipuram in south if it was not in reign of Samudra and Kumara it must have been in Chandragupta's reign moreover i have verified from multiple sources that Gupta empire had its cultural as well as territorial peak under Chandragupta II (you could reverify it from any source which talks about this empire)

2.) Also i have found one source which mentions "Subordinate Alliance" when talking about Vakataka dynasty during Chandragupta II's reign, you could see this link; [9]https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00raycuoft/page/282/mode/2up

So, this one apart from Kulke also mentions Vakataka realm to be heavily influenced by the Gupta during Chandragupta II's reign which could be shown in the map.

3.) See this it mentions Kadamba-Gupta marital relations; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadamba_dynasty#Expansion

Hope you find this helpful. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the Schwartzberg atlas. It is a little dated (<1980) but still very useful as a reference.

Like I wrote: if you know any modern works (>2010) that cite this information, please let me know. Woudloper (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got a book based on gupta-vakataka age but it's dated <2010,

It might help you;[10]https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.2028/mode/1up Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your link. Sadly, this book was printed in 1946 (reprint 1954). See page 5 for the date. I will look at it though.

In general I avoid sources that are this old when it comes to Indian history, because the historical research of that period was strongly influenced by revisionist ideologies (colonialist, nationalist, marxist, etc). I am not a historian by profession; I do not completely trust my own ability to distinguish facts from ideology. Apart from that, the holistic approach to historical research (political, economical, social, cultural) only became mainstream around 2000-2010; it is absent in such old books - although that does not affect the trustworthiness of the source directly (however, it does affect how much importance is given to political details - Wikipedia calls that issue 'undue weight'). Woudloper (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Raden Saleh - Diponegoro arrest.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Desertasad (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Just wanted to send a note that I love your illustrations! We've been revamping our introductory courses to ditch the textbook, and open-licensed images that we can use instead of the publisher images have been key in that effort. Yours are some of the best out there. Thank you! Carie027 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks, you really made my day with this message. This is high praise, especially coming from somebody with your background in science. I followed the link on your UP and I love the research you did! I teach science to high school students, but I wish I could do research.

Which of my uploads do you like or would you use in your courses?

I checked out your own uploads. You do a great job here too! I like the 3D tectonic diagram of the American west coast. 3D diagrams are hard and time-consuming to make. Your curve of radio-isotope abundance over time - showing the isotope particles inside a small crystal - was on my wish list. Now I no longer need to draw that one. :-)

Thank you and best regards, Woudloper (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Woudloper

Don't user "self" when you're actually not the author

Image Tagging Image:Louis Dollo.JPG

Please be more carefully

images from Nethelands

About Esther Hess

Rock Cycle Diagram

Image Tagging Image:Ferdinand_Hochstetter_Geograph.jpg

Image Tagging Image:UniBern1909.jpg

TUSC token b2f682b2fc80f705e76929e3808b1a5a

Image Tagging Image:Botany_Barnstar2.png

Image Tagging Image:Louis_Dollo.JPG

Image Tagging Image:Rockcycle.jpg

Image Tagging Image:Botany_Barnstar2.png

Image Tagging Image:010331neu.png

Tip: Categorizing images

Re Extinct taxa

Europa

SVG Translation in italian

2011-03 Iapetus fossil evidence

File source is not properly indicated: File:GautamiPutraSatakarni.jpg

Your Awesome Rockness

Licencing and The Highland Boundary Fault

File:Pegmatite body.JPG

Geologic clock

photo credit

photo credit

Notification about possible deletion

Geology map of Wales and SW England

Image licensing

File:Scotland metamorphic zones EN.svg

Map of Gupta Empire 400 A.D.

Featured Picture Nomination

A barnstar for you!

Navigation menu

Search