User talk:Fredlyfish4/Archive 1

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Fredlyfish4!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−
First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
  • You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
  • To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
  • You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
  • There are several tools to upload files.
  • Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.
Made a mistake?
  • Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
  • Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

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, Fredlyfish4!
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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New Categories!

Hi Fred, I just created Category:Salmon River (Idaho), Category:Salmon River Basin (Idaho), Category:Tributaries of the Snake River, and Category:White Cloud Mountains. -- Hämbörger (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 395ce1f5cd5c6747faf7ad96aa948699

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Sawtooth Valley ID1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sawtooth Valley ID1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Boats in Redfish Lake.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! Verry Good! -- Steinsplitter 09:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle and Merriam Peaks.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 -- George Chernilevsky 04:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sawtooth Mountains and Salmon River.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. -- JLPC 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Smoky Redfish.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! DimiTalen 06:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sawtooth mtns.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 composition --Haneburger 14:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Warm Springs Creek.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok to me. --Iifar 16:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Salmon River.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. --Cayambe 16:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sawtooth from Stanley Lake Creek.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. --Cayambe 16:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sawtooths and Toxaway Lake.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. --Cayambe 18:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense categorization

Hi Fredlyfish4, Some time ago, I have been busy getting rid of images nonsensically classified in the categories Cartography, Classification systems, Encodings, Geographic information systems and Identifiers. Simultaneously. Recently, new images have been uploaded with this categorization, some of them by you (e.g. File:Sawtooths from South 4.JPG). Can you please explain the reason of this categorization? KKoolstra (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation on my talk-page. It seems that somewhere on en.wikipedia is the source of the problem. However, I haven't yet been able to find the corresponding categories there to fix the problem at the source. But I will keep trying. Thank you for cooperating in removing the erroneous cateogries. KKoolstra (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fisher Creek Trail.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. --Cayambe 20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Laumeier Sculpture Park 1.JPG

File:Laumeier Sculpture Park 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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

←fetchcomms 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Laumeier Sculpture Park 2.JPG

File:Laumeier Sculpture Park 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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

←fetchcomms 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! New River Gorge Bridge Overlook.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 A little overblown at the left and a bit soft, but overall good. --King of Hearts 02:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mt Jackson GNP1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

File:Camas Prairie At Sunset - Idaho.jpg

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
File:Camas Prairie At Sunset - Idaho.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ magyar ∙ português do Brasil ∙ italiano ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ français ∙ македонски ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ українська ∙ svenska ∙ sicilianu ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 08:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleting vs Archiving

Please do not simply delete notices of DRs and other similar communications. It makes it much more difficult for your colleagues to get a complete picture of your activities on Commons. You may, of course, create one or more archive subpages as needed if the main page gets too long. Most of us use a name like User talk:Fredlyfish4/Archive 1. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

These messages are not that relevant to me because all of the files I am notified about are those that I have transferred from the English Wikipedia to the Commons via CommonsHelper. I am not the author or original uploader of any of the files and cannot provide source information on them. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the real question is why you are transferring so many files that are obviously unsourced or even blatant copyright violations to Commons. Uploading files to Commons (whether directly or by transferring them from another project) without conducting basic checks to ensure that files that you upload meet Commons' requirements creates a lot of work for others and undermines the reliability of Commons. If you're not willing or able to perform those checks, you should probably leave the whole task of identifying files to be transferred here to others. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
While I almost always review files before I transfer them, I often make mistakes. But more significantly, some of these files are ones that I thought had proper source information but did not upon review on the Commons. I realize that my understanding of copyright laws involving images other than my own is not complete, but I am working on it. I will try to take care to deal with unsourced files on Wikipedia before transferring them. Reviewers who list them for deletion here should always notify the original uploader, who can them provide the correct source info. This is not done nearly as often as it should be. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hi, Fredlyfish4. I am Dianna and I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I can't help but notice that a really large number of the files that you are transferring to the Commons should not be here, as they are not in the public domain. I suggest that you stop transferring files to the Commons for the time being, until you have a better grasp of what is and is not allowed on this wiki. Please consider reading Commons:Hirtle chart and Commons:Licensing for a better understanding of what is required before a file can be hosted on the Commons. Not only is a lot of your work for nothing, as many of your files are being deleted, but you are generating a lot of unnecessary work for administrators, both here and on the English Wikipedia. So please stop. Thanks. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm not the original author or uploader of the files. Second, I'm not sure what was going through my mind when I transferred them; I'm normally more cautious. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I am aware you are not the original uploader. You transferred the items to Commons using a bot script. Of the images I personally have checked, virtually none of them belong on the Commons, as they are incorrectly tagged as released under license or are shown as being public domain, when in actuality they are not. None of these files have adequate source information and/or level of proof of permission of the original photographer. Most will have to be deleted from both locations. Instead of transferring them to the Commons, they should have been nominated for deletion or converted to fair use, if appropriate. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's not quite as bad as it looks; Fredlyfish had transferred over many images, and I deleted the ones that were obviously OK, and this left mostly bad images, which is what Diannaa saw. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! McKittrick Canyon.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 for me --The Photographer 02:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Guadalupe Peak from Bowl Trail.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, maybe FP? --The Photographer 02:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hikers Staircase.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. --Florstein 10:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hunter Peak.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. --Poco a poco 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hunter Line Shack.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. --JLPC 17:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Manzanita Spring.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Mattbuck 03:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stillwater River Maine.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 Sharpness (especially at the trees in the background) could be better, but the compsosition with the crossing trunks in the center is very good. --Tuxyso 05:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I use one of your videos

Hello Fredlyfish4!

I have use a video of Ovis canadensis from wikimedia in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia)

You can see directly in the follow link:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/video.php?id=7941

Also, I have used wordos of your user page in wikipedia for your contributor profile in Animalandia:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fredlyfish4

If you wish, send me a personal photo for complete your profile. I want show to my students (and so everybody) that Animalandia is make for "real person", and I can tell them about "generosity", "share" and other similar words that we use very few at this time...

This is my "contributor profile" and others, for example:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Carmen%20Jim%E9nez

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=David%20P%E9rez

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Boris%20Loboda

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Steve%20Garvie%20%28Rainbirder%29

In the future, I use more of your animal resources, I sure!

Thank you for the licence!! Regards! Fernando Lisón

--Fernando.lison (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Subject/headline:

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gray treefrog amplexus.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 Wow ... now a real QI --Cccefalon 19:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palo Duro Canyon and Capitol Peak.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support --A.Savin 13:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cerro Castellan.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. --Alberto-g-rovi 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Young CA meadow.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. --Ralf Roletschek 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall view.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely Эlcobbola talk 21:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

please delete this picture, it's of me and i can't figure out how to delete it

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zack_Shah_in_2010.jpg

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Fredlyfish4,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! University of Mississippi Field Station 6.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. --Poco a poco 18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Caprock Canyons 2014 5.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments ok --A.Savin 15:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gypsum layers Caprock Canyons 1.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. --JLPC 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Interstate 20 at Vicksburg and Mississippi River.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. --Cayambe 09:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trillium Great Smoky Mountains.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. --Uoaei1 11:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sceloporus undulatus in Guadalupe Mountains National Park.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Puskus Lake 2.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 Pretty. --Mattbuck 17:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Guadalupe Mountains March 2014.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Mattbuck 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! White Mountains2010-08-20.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. --Ralf Roletschek 16:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wells Fargo Building Lubbock.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. --Poco a poco 09:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sublett farm house 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support A little bit soft, but OK for QI. --XRay 16:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Structure of file page

You may want to weigh in at Commons:Help desk#Structure of file page, since we obviously disagree. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I generally only move licenses from the infobox if something looks out of place. I'm not sure why I changed your file pages, but I remember having qualms about it. Sorry for any issues. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lepomis megalotis UMFS 2015.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 Weak ok for me. --Hubertl 00:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rosa palustris flower.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. --Hubertl 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vanessa virginiensis UMFS 2015 2.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. --Atamari 20:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Celithemis elisa female 2.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. --Cccefalon 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Fredlyfish4

User:Fredlyfish4 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 user page, 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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

89.222.164.59 17:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

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

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Krigia dandelion UMFS.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. --A.Savin 00:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Erigeron philadelphicus UMFS 1.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. --SAplants 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Claytonia virginica UMFS 1.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. --Peulle 18:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hexagenia limbata nymph.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 IMO - you can even see the filaments.. --Peulle 11:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rosa multiflora flower UMFS.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. --A.Savin 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hyla chrysoscelis UMFS 2016 5.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. --Poco a poco 10:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

WSA's?

Are they all on BLM land now? None on Forest Service or other federal lands?

I noticed you added "BLM areas" as a master category for cat: WSAs. Hence the question. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tillman: I actually forgot the Forest Service has any. They're still there, just less prominent that the BLM, I think. I removed the category, though I think all the photos in the category so far are of BLM sites. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Texas Madrone in Guadalupe Mountains.JPG

Hi. I am planning to use your photo of the madroño "strawberries" to illustrate the appendix on Mexican trees in the book I am writing.
It is a guidebook to Mexico City for personal and family use which began as a grad school assignment.
It is not for publication since I don't own its illustrations.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Automeris io UMFS 2.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 01:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fredlyfish4/Archive_1&oldid=515083051"