User talk:Umehlig

NowCommons

Hallo Umehlig! Bitte setze bei Bildern, die du auf Commons übertragen hast, stets in der ursprünglichen Wikipedia ein {{NowCommons}} auf die Bildbeschreibungsseite. Das erspart anderen Leuten anschließend das große Suchen. --Gruß und Danke Crux 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habe ich inzwischen gemacht -- ich hatte das Übertragungs-HOWTO im ersten Anlauf nicht zu Ende gelesen :-( Danke & viele Grüße! --Umehlig 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botany

Category:Botanical illustrations definitely looks better now! Just a question: Does it really make sense to produce circular category references (Category:Botany in Category:Botanical illustrations and vice versa etc.? --Ulf Mehlig 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well to tellyou the truth, I am new to all this wiki stuff, only been doing it one year. I just discovered all this category and article liking stuff and I "thought" connections were important. I was assuming if someone found the Cat Botony and were unaware of Illustrations or Biology etc, then I would put corrosponding links in each article. I know I would not have found some things I am also interested in if there were not corrosponding links. Also I am only temporarily putting the links inside the Images in case I have to create a new species article where none exists or create a new article for an Illustrator, if you should happen to notice those links, Danke WayneRay 13:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Hmm, I would rather avoid circular referencing; I think a hierarchical category scheme is easier to understand. If Category:Botanical illustrations is in Category:Botany, it will appear on the Category:Botany page, and the bottom line of the Category:Botanical illustrations page will show the higher ranking categories like Category:Botany. --Ulf Mehlig 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you mean, but feel free to re edit the links, I am concentrating on the Botanist illuustrators right now Thanks WayneRay 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

I fixed some of the circling links as you suggested and it is more logical WayneRay 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Great! Thank you. --Ulf Mehlig 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britton and Brown

There are 229 images associated with the article you added, shall I finish them or are you going to do it meine freunde WayneRay 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

I saw that with terror afterwards ;-) Go ahead, but I'll continue once in a while if I have the time. BTW, maybe this could be done by a bot, but I have no experience with that. Could be a good idea to ask at Commons:Village_pump before sitting hours and hours changing the categories ... All the best, --Ulf Mehlig 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh trade secret revealed = go to Search on the left side bar / put in name of book or illustrator etc / copy and paste each list of 20 or so items into Wordpad text editor / Sturm's 756 names took me only one half hour to delete all information except for the .png or .jpg name / I have created templates for Species pages and Illustrator pages, all ready using an automatic write program available at www.irfanview.com / go to blank wiki page and create page from template, paste in editing and Illustrator category and Shazaam = a new article or species or category in less than 30 minutes for the really big ones and less than 15 minutes for the smaller ones WayneRay 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Missing categories

Hi, I thought I had an article on Orsted? I dont see it. Put the categories you mentioned back in the photo and I will see if I can see what happened to all his illustrations WayneRay 20:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

I found it, it was under the illustrator not the publisher Augusta Thorman, illustrator in Costa Rica and Nicaragua 1846-1848 WayneRay 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

BTW, I am not sure whether giving a link the article below the license tag is conventional – the information which article uses the picture is appended automatically, anyway. All the best! --Ulf Mehlig 07:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realize I shuldnt put the link in the photograph but, that is the only way I know if a speciaes or article exists or if I have to create one. Links can and should ve been removed later . How else can we find missing things if there is no link? WayneRay 13:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Strange – isn't there a line "The following articles use this file" (or something like that) above the categories at the bottom of the picture page? This is generated automatically normally, and the other link you put below the licence just says the same ... --Ulf Mehlig 05:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No actually, I mean yes that is there, but for example I have photos of Beleperone guttata and only the red link showed up , there was no article anad no category I could find, so after I created a new species article for it, it appeared int he photo, so if there is nothing out there in Commons, your link you mentioed wont be there either, so I have to create the link and then make a new article.WayneRay 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Artemis protome.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:Artemis protome.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. Samulili 07:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this photo was self-made and could have been used under {tlx|self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} ... unfortunately, I didn't log in for a while, so I couldn't react in time. Is there an option to recover the photo? --Ulf Mehlig (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]