User talk:MathKnight/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ulm minster

[edit]

Hi MathKnight, I've posted your request at de:Diskussion:Ulmer_Münster#Bilderwunsch_auf_Commons but nobody reacted, yet. I think that most of the people (including myself), don't understand all of your words. Can you maybe give a little more information? Helpful would be pictures (even from google image search) that show the parts you mention and links to en.wp (since there are various translations that actually match). Do you know if they're already removed the scaffolds? I will go to Ulm in July, so maybe I could take a picture, if I manage to completely understand what you want. Best regards, --Flominator (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The view of Ulm Minster I want is either this (from the south, capturing the main spire (Turmspitze, on the left), the flying buttressesStrebebogen (the outside arches that support the nave) and the eastern twin spires (on the right)) or this. Scaffolds (Gerüst) are wooden platforms and bars covering the structure for restoration works. I don't know if they were removed yet but I do hope so. And again, thanks! MathKnight 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MathKnight, I learned about your image request. I'm sorry to tell you that eastern and southern parts of the main steeple and parts of the southern, smaller steeple as well are covered with staffolds. As I fear, this situation will persist the next years more or less. Ulmer Minster without staffolds is a very rare event. Cheers --Density (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is regretful that this beautiful Gothic church is obscured by the scaffolds. Thanks for the info. MathKnight 17:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

Timing

[edit]

I hadn't uploaded a single picture about gothic architecture in months, but when I happen to do so, you spot it in less than 15 minutes! Do you have a cathedral-finding bot of some sort?? :-) --Eusebius (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually check the QI candidates list but only seldom comment. I do have a thing for Gothic architecture and this picture was great. I also post nominations there, mainly of flowers in Israel, such as File:Chartzit24-1-09.jpg. MathKnight 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Glebionis coronaria (Garland chrysanthemum).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chartzit24-1-09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good detail, ok DOF Gnangarra 13:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

[edit]

Hello MathKnight!

This file has no valid source. The uploader could not specify the source satisfying. But it seems that you are the author of this image. Is that true? Or what does "Yossi Yaari via User:MathKnight" mean? --High Contrast (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author is Yossi Yaari from Fresh Military & Security Forum, Israel. He gave me permission to upload it under attribution liscense (copyrighted, but free use for any purpose, attribution required). I fixed the details in the image, is it OK now? MathKnight 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. But you must send the permission of Yossi Yaari to Commons:OTRS. This is very important because it must be verified that you really have a valid permission which allows you to distribute this image under a free licence. I have inserted a template on the image site where you can find all relevant links. Thanks for cooperating. --High Contrast (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already sent a massage to Yossi Yaari about OTRS. When he replies I'd printscreen his permission and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. NatanFlayer (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: OTRS Agreement of Yosi Yaari. NatanFlayer (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! YarkonSource001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good composition and significant shot --Cesco77 19:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about geocoding? --Berthold Werner 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --MathKnight 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

[edit]

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, MathKnight!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

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 19:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest are used in my userpage and hence have only my user's category. MathKnight 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.מת', אני בטוח שתמצא באילו קטגוריות לשלבן. זה פחות חשוב אם יימצא להן שימוש אחר Gridge (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
הוספתי גם לשאר. יש לך רעיונות ל-2 שנותרו (הבאנרים שבראש דפי המשתמש שלי)? י MathKnight 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.לא ממש, אז שמתי קטגוריות אדומות כדי שהבוטים פה לא יטרידו אותך Gridge (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Rayonnant rose window

[edit]

I'm just a humble amateur :-) Thank you, that you spend your time and work. Your version is nice, so I show it to others. Regards. Albertus teolog (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! IndianElephant-SRG001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good.--Mbz1 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! AfricanElephant-SRG001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good.--Mbz1 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Israeli-wildlife002.jpg

[edit]
File:Israeli-wildlife002.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose windows and lancets

[edit]

Hi there. [1] I know it is not a rose windows, but the lancets are somewhat part of the ensemble and I think they should be categorized in a specific way. However, some of them are in the same pictures as the roses and some are not. Would you care to propose a way to categorize them? I am not against more categories for the windows in Chartres: it is a large ensemble and I think I should be able to identify most of the pictures we have (i.e. assign individual windows and precise location within the church). --Eusebius (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, the three lancets were created before the west rose, which is a later addition. Maybe we should categorized them as Category:Stained glass windows of the west facade of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres which may include them, their details and also the west rose? MathKnight 19:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is one category for all three roses. Do you want to make one cat for the western facade (with one subcat for the rose), and put one subcat for each of the other roses in the transept subcat? --Eusebius (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the west rose pictures can be categorized twice: in rose category and in west facade category. If there are several transept pictures, it would be helpful to categorize north and south transept on the corresponding rose windows and lancets' pictures. MathKnight 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NileCrocodile-SRG001c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. - Darius Baužys 20:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were accidently removed... etc.

[edit]

I think you're right, but not just those, it happened to all the images which were to be promoted today. Wolf (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Oxalis-pes-caprae0021c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments This one is better, IMO - Darius Baužys 13:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help replace this outdated license

[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

BotMultichillT 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MathKnight 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Iris001c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments I think that is qi to me. --Herbythyme 09:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Calanit009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good. --Cayambe 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Calaniyot-NZ001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good. --Cayambe 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! CalanitMagenDavid001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

Merkava

[edit]

Hi. I love your images. Unfortunately a potential concern came up with File:Merkava4 MichaelMass01.jpg. The copyright owner of the image is Michael Mass, but there is no evidence that he has given permission for his image to be uploaded and used here under a free license. We need permission from the copyright owner, perhaps sent by OTRS or to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. Any thougghts on how to keep the image?Cptnono (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message with the permissions to the OTRS for Michael Mass's pictures. I hope they'll react and confirm it swiftly. MathKnight 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. Tomer A. (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. MathKnight 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Apologies for any hassle.Cptnono (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Oxalis-paz001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ShokedaFeb2010pic (24).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Adonis microcarpa (Small pheasant's eye).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review


File source is not properly indicated: File:Israel-flag01.jpg

[edit]
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‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Israel-flag01.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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!

Could you please add the usual information template to this image of your and fill-in all entries. The current source information is self-referent and thereby useless. --Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is self made, I addded the template. MathKnight 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MortWindow.jpg

[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, forgot it. I now've adeed the license. MathKnight 17:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Do you have a better version of File:T-72-.jpg?

[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ македонски ∙ українська ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ +/−

Thank you for your submission of File:T-72-.jpg. While all submissions are useful, do you think you might be able to supply a better quality version of the same, or similar, content? In many cases, the largest and highest resolution possible is the most useful version to have available. (MediaWiki has automatic resizing functionality, so there is no need for multiple versions of the same image at different sizes, users can select any size and the software will generate and cache the needed resolution on the fly.)

If you can supply the same exact image as File:T-72-.jpg at a larger resolution (or media at a higher bitrate, etc.), please just upload it over the original, users will get the new higher quality version with no further effort on your part. If on the other hand, the content is only similar, it is best to select a new image name, as there may be uses already where some aspect of the existing media was key to the usage. In the latter case, if you can provide a crosslink reference to the new image in the older one and vice versa, that will be extremely helpful.

Again, thank you very much for your contribution, it is appreciated.

High Contrast (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, but I'm not the orginal photographer. It was photoed by he:משתמש:נחמן under free license long time ago, and I only processed it and moved it to here. I'll try to photo a high res pic of the T-72 next time I'm in Yad la-Shiryon Museum. MathKnight 19:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SunsetRishon 0024raw1.jpg

[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Added. MathKnight 18:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity Photos - Route

[edit]

Hello MathNight,

My name is Rita.

I work in CÂmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Lisbon, Portugal.

Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure.

We found your photo of Oxalis pes caprae and liked very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photo, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone.

The photos we would like to use are the following:

- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oxalis-pes-caprae0021c.jpg

The Biodiversity Route will have four brackets. Broochura a pocket to take the route A brochure to present the day of inauguration Schedules for species identification Panels that will be fixed in the Land


If you provide us these photos, what´s the name do you want we refer on the bibliography associated to your photo - MathKnight and ZachiEvenor ?

Thank you very much for your help.

If it is possible, please respond to: rita.neves@cm-lisboa.pt

Thank you.

You can use the photo, attribute it to MathKnight and ZachiEvenor. MathKnight 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! FranziscanerKirche001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good. --Cayambe 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

File:October2010Misc 0009.JPG

[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Originally CC-SA-BY-3.0, but this one is for speedy delete. MathKnight 17:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! IDF-D9R pic001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good--Jebulon 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Einot Zukim (Ein Fashke).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Chartzit

[edit]

Hi

We are writing a book on spices and herbs.

The title is “Krydderleksikon med urter og smakstilsetninger” (Encyclopedia of spices and herbs). Print run is 5000 copies and the book will be published in May this year. It will be illustrated with photos of all the plants.

Most of the photos are already provided for but we still miss some picture.

We have found your photo of Chartzit on the Internet and we wonder if you kindly will let us use the photo in our book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chartzit24-1-09.jpg

For more information about us and the book please contact us on: post(a)vegaforlag.no - www.vegaforlag.no

Best regards Gitte

Yes, you can use the photo, provided I am properly attributed and credit (i.e. my name appear under the photo or in some place clearifying the photographer was me). Attribute it to " MathKnight and Zachi Evenor". MathKnight 18:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Calaniyot-OrHaner001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very much like an impressionist painting... --Cayambe 08:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flags of Israel and Israel Combat Engineering Corps.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Carschten 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tulip agenensis ZE.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Comment Beautiful picture, but why is its thumbnails invisible? invisible only for me? --David Perez 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Visible now. Good QI and beautiful. --David Perez 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tulipa agenensis (Eyed Tulip).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! MerkavaMk4 ZE001m.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good--Jebulon 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tavor MTAR-21.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

borders and watermarks are not wanted on Commons

[edit]

Dear MathKnight,

I have reverted again File:IDF-D9R-Israel60.jpg because borders and watermarks are something that are not wanted on images on Commons. --ALE! ¿…? 13:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just removed them, takes only few seconds. MathKnight 13:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jews02.jpg

[edit]
File:Jews02.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Chesdovi (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location?

[edit]

Hi MathKnight - this pic File:DishonMikrai002.jpg the co-ordinates given (in Egypt) don't match the named location (in Israel). Can you check and correct as needed, please? - MPF (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Thanks for noticing. MathKnight 19:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:D9-us pic28m.jpg

[edit]
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‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:D9-us pic28m.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Knight SR-25 sniper rifle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

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

Valued Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! IndependenceDay2012-Israel 0006a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice picture and good quality. --Indeedous 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Schreiber-Math-TAU-001.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lilium candidum (Madonna Lily) Habitus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Garden snail (Helix aspersa / Cornu aspersum).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

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

Valued Image Promotion

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

Valued Image Promotion

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

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
M24 Sniper Weapon System (bolt action sniper rifle).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

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

Valued Image Promotion

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

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
IDF Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MathKnight/Archive_2&oldid=153490139"