User talk:AfroBrazilian

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, AfroBrazilian!

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.

Not Aquarius paludum

Hi Aleksandr,

Regarding your image File:Aquarius paludum paludum 01.JPG This is not Aquarius paludum. Where is the animal from? Palearctic region? Russia? Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Good day. I though I found wrong name, but I believe it was right, it was dificult for me find right names. There is I think some images names of which I found incorrect. Now about the image - Aquarius paludum: Yes, it is from Palearctic region, from Latvia, and exactly from Rēzekne suburb. If you could help me to find for some of it correct names, say me. AfroBrazilian (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Aleksandr, I've requested a rename of the file. As it is from Latvia I'm confident it should be Limnoporus rufoscutellatus. I've also uploaded the image here to be used (later) in some overview of Central-European waterbugs. If you wish for any changes in linking/naming of credits please let me know :o) Will have a look at your other images later, but there are many groups of species that I know virtually nothing about, so no guarantees. Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Glischrochilus grandis 01.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 20:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

About pics of plants of Sanja565658

(Copied across from my talk page - MPF (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC))

Hy!

Remember you wrote to me on May 17th about my photos in User:Sanja565658/Plantae, I really don`t understand do you want I read where I fount that plant or it full distribution in the World? And sorry I do not reply to you so long, but you should see remained by template (Send message to User:AfroBrazilian - this is my second, and now used account). Sanja565658 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I was meaning the place where you found the plant and took the photo. - MPF (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, if you want so, I`ll do it.=)AfroBrazilian (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You want I do it so as I did now? AfroBrazilian (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent, many thanks! It makes the photos much more valuable to botanists ;-) MPF (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Vicia_lutea_01.JPG rotation

Hallo AfroBrazilian, File:Vicia_lutea_01.JPG and File:Viola arvensis 01.JPG and File:Tinea pellionella 01.jpg are corrected now. Some problems occurred due to general server problem today. If you got problems with rotated images just use RotateLink next time. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Patroller

I've given you the Patroller right that you had as Sanja565658. I've seen a lot (tens, maybe hundreds?) of your new galleries while doing New Page Patrol and they all look good, so now I won't see them anymore. Keep up the good work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thaks! I right want to send request to give me this right, but forgot it cause of time I had spend uploading images and creating new pages. There is some tens galleries:} but very very many images. I have in my PC a lot imaged that are non named. AfroBrazilian (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saperda carcharias 01.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. --Kadellar 15:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Paraclusia tigrina 02.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Eupteryx atropunctata 01.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eupteryx atropunctata 01.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How can I add license to this picture when it is uploaded? Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good picture

Greetings Alecs [1] Nice work clearly showing habitat. Do you have photos of Lepidoptera habitats? Best regards from Ireland Notafly (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have many photographies of habitats like different nature places. But if you wont special places for every species or species group (witch is from same place) I can make it, only if weather allows because we have now rainy and stormy time. For wich kind of Lepidoptera you want to see habitat? Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 20:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Symphoricarpos albus 01.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Symphoricarpos albus 01.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 21:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I use some of your photos

Hello Alexandr!

I have use a pair of photos of Nephrotoma crocata and other of Pterostichus niger in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org)

You can see directly in the follow links and clic over "Siguiente" ("Next"):

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/imagen.php?id=39445 http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/imagen.php?id=1472

If you wish (and I hope yes), you can send me (via fernando.lison@educa.madrid.org) some letters or/and a photo for your "contributor profile" in Animalandia:

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=Aleksandr%20%28AfroBrazilian%29

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

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

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

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

In the future, I use more of your photos, I sure!

Thank you for the licence and, of course, for your splendid photos!! Regards! Fernando Lisón, from Spain --Fernando.lison (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! )

Sure you can use my photos if you think that those have quality you need. I`ll upload more photos right here, or I will send to you some. I am glad to take apart in project. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Very much thank you!

I'll take more of your photos in wikimedia. Also, you can send me that you like (fernando.lison@educa.madrid.org, dropbox or any way).

Anything for your contributor card? It's important to me! --Fernando.lison (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an Adelphocoris quadripunctatus

Your Closterotomus norvegicus‎ is an Adelphocoris quadripunctatus. I can move the file for you, if you want.

--Stanzilla (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it may be that species. Yes, please move it to wright name. Thank You! Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 14:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Photographs of the Adelphocoris quadripunctatus are even more rare than those of the Closterotomus norvegicus‎. I've added it to the category as well. Regards, --Stanzilla (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You! Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 21:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Choerades femorata 01.JPG

Dear Aleksandr,

The creature in this picture is Dioctria atricapilla.

Kind regards,

Reinoud van den Broek Validator for Asilidae www.waarneming.nl http://waarneming.nl/download/fotogidsAsilidae.pdf

Hi! Thank You for giving correct species name. You know it is very good photo guide of insects, do you know some else same photo guides of other insect families? Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi here are some more Dutch fieldguides:

http://waarneming.nl/download/fotogids_Syrphidae.pdf http://waarneming.nl/download/Veldtabel_blaaskopvliegen_tel.pdf http://waarneming.nl/download/Veldtabel_wolzwevers_150.pdf http://waarneming.nl/download/Veldtabel_Stratiomyidae.pdf

I hope your Dutch is ok : )

Enjoy

Thank You! It will be ok)Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Photograph request

I write to request permission to reprint the photograph (Blepharipa pratensis) found on this site (see the link below). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Blepharipa_pratensis#mediaviewer/File:Blepharipa_pratensis_01.JPG

I am preparing a publication titled “Gypsy Moth Larval Necropsy Guide”. The guide will be published by the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station (NRS) as a General Technical Report and posted on the NRS website http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us I am unsure of the actual publication date, but I am hopeful that it will be sometime this year (2015).

Please reply with your response and thank you for considering this request.

Hello! Yes, sure You can use this photo in Your publication. I would be always glad if I can help in same projects! If will be some alse You need from my photo, You always can use it. I hope I will purchase professional lens in this year. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 21:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please merge your accounts Sanja565658 in all Wikipedias

Hi,

I have noticed that you are using accounts Sanja565658 in different Wikipedias but you have not merged them into a global account yet. Global accounts become mandatory since 15 April 2015, and all non-merged accounts will be renamed.

As of now, you have accounts Sanja565658 in other projects, for example, in Ukrainian Wikipedia and Wikispecies, which are not merged with your global account. Only some of your accounts are attached to your Sanja565658 account now, so please log in as Sanja565658 and click on Special:MergeAccount and finish the unification process. You can check the state of your account unification at Special:CentralAuth/Sanja565658

If you don't merge your accounts by 15 April, your accounts Sanja565658 can be renamed.

If you have questions you can ask them on my talk page. Best regards — NickK (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Paraclusia tigrina

Paraclusia tigrina has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pristurus (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've moved the page to "Clusia tigrina" (Paraclusia is now part of the genus Clusia, see Lonsdale, O. & Marshall, S.A. 2008. Synonymy within Clusia and description of the new genus Melanoclusia (Diptera: Clusiidae: Clusiinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101(2): 327-330). Greetings, --Pristurus (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Leptinotarsadecemlineata

Dear Aleksandr, I don't know if my request is possible, but I thank you anyway to answer me.

In this moment, I'm finishing a social and historical work: collecting a life stories whith old people about their life in the farms around, about 60 years ago. Many of them told me how, when their where at school, they used to help farmers, collecting potatoes beetles in the fields. That's why I'm looking for a Leptinotarsa decemlineata picture, and yours would make a very beautiful cover page for our booklet! This booklet has not financial purpose, only to share these stories with the storytellers'neighbours. I'd send you with pleasure an exemple of the last cover of my booklet in order you can have an idea of the work we are doing.

Is it possible to order you a high quality version of this picture : commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leptinotarsa_decemlineata_01.JPG ?

It would be wonderfull.

Thank you very much ( and my excuses for my english, my mothertongue is french)

Best regards,

Pauline Roy paulineroy.home@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.164.139.157 (talk) 20:38, 01 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi AfroBrazilian, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

INeverCry 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thaks! I`ll read about filemoving. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 21:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ichneumon suspiciosus 01.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. --Ermell 12:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dahlia 'Alpen Bill' 01.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 07:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cleome hassleriana 'Kelly Rose' 01.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 don't. It's overexposed and has too many distracting unsharp areas. Daniel Case 02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dahlia 'Zinta' 01.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. --Ermell 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Pilsoņu iela 13 01.JPG

File:Pilsoņu iela 13 01.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!

Dāvis Kļaviņš (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Chlorissa 01.jpg

Hi Aleksandrs, I just want to inform you that I have changed the identification of this picture to Chlorissa sp. (it used to be misidentified as Jodis lactearia). Best regards --LamBoet (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear AfroBrazilian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh 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 (2016) 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. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Aedes sp. 02.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tolmerus atricapillus 02.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 Shallow DOF. But QI for me --Vengolis 18:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hesperia comma

Hi AfroBrazilian, this picture and this one are not Hesperia comma, but an Ochlodes species. Then the species would depend on the location, which you have not indicated. Can you make the correction? --LamBoet (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, why it is not H. comma, but Ochlodes? White markings on upper and lower wings are distinct. Thise example was cached in Latvia. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 13:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

On the underside, the light markings are not white, but less contrasted than in H. comma, and there are hardly any basal markings. On the upperside, the markings near the apex are larger and more adjacent to one another. So, in Latvia, as you know, this can only be Ochlodes sylvanus.

Are all your butterfly pictures from Latvia? May I suggest that you indicate this in their description, to make the pictures more valuable? It would also be interesting to categorize them in Category:Lepidoptera of Latvia. :-)--LamBoet (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all my pictures of butterflies are from Latvia. This is my category of galleries of insects, including gallerfy of Lepidoptera, all pictures in this gallery were taken in this year mostly from Vangaži, Bauska and Riga cities. You can look and say to me if I am wrong in identification of species. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 07:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I move those pictures to correct name. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 07:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi AfroBrazilian. I have seen that you "moved" the 2 files: thank you for that, but you also need to 1) correct the description of the image (use the edit button, correct the species name and perhaps add the location), and 2) correct the species category so that the picture is classified with all other Ochlodes sylvanus (either use the edit button or the HotCat gadget). This is more important than changing the filename.

About the country category, what I was suggesting is to add your butterfly pictures to the common category Category:Lepidoptera of Latvia. I see you already have a couple of pictures there.

Yes, I will check your other pictures. Have a nice day. --LamBoet (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I found a few other mistakes in your other pictures indeed, and I directly did the corrections. Please check your watchlist and ask me if you need further clarifications. --LamBoet (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thecla betulae 01.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. -- Ikan Kekek 08:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hesperia comma 02.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 QI. --C messier 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coenonympha glycerion 01.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 Can you get a less tight crop, especially at the left? Otherwise, a QI. --C messier 18:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)  Done less crop done AfroBrazilian 13:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --C messier 13:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ochlodes sylvanus 05.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. --Martin Falbisoner 19:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Silpha tristis 02.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Silpha tristis 02.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

4shadoww (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhyparochromus pini 02.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. --Cvmontuy 14:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dorcus parallelipipedus 03.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. --Basile Morin 11:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dorcus parallelipipedus 01.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. --KTC 10:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aromia moschata 04.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. --KTC 10:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lamia textor 02.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. --Cvmontuy 02:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lamia textor 03.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. --Cvmontuy 04:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Sculpture-Rainis 01.JPG

File:Sculpture-Rainis 01.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!

Dogad75 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sympetrum danae 04.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. --Ermell 21:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sympetrum danae 03.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 19:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Libellula depressa 03.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. --Ermell 21:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Libellula quadrimaculata 02.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. --Ermell 21:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orthetrum cancellatum 03.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 - Clear head and body. -- Ikan Kekek 04:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coenagrion hastulatum 01.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, Tournasol7 14:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sympetrum flaveolum 02.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. --Poco a poco 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coenagrion hastulatum 02.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. --Poco a poco 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coenagrion hastulatum 03.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. --Poco a poco 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dolichomitus imperator 01.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. --Ermell 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vespa crabro 02.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. --Ermell 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dahlia 'Biedermannsdorf' 01.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ocypus olens 02.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. --Trougnouf 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Sympecma paedisca 01.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sympecma paedisca 01.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sympetrum sanguineum 04.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. --Trougnouf 11:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dahlia 'Delilah' 01.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. -- Ikan Kekek 07:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ocypus ophthalmicus 01.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 - Per Wikipedia, these are very small creatures, so good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 01:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spondylis buprestoides 01.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. --Ermell 20:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spondylis buprestoides 03.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. --Ermell 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dorcus parallelipipedus 04.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. --Ermell 20:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sinodendron cylindricum 03.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. --GPSLeo 19:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palomena prasina & Nithecus jacobaeae on Dactylis glomerata feeds on Hymenomtera coccons.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 QI. -- Ikan Kekek 23:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Thelaira nigripes 07.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Thelaira nigripes 02.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Thelaira nigripes 07.JPG

Copyright status: File:Thelaira nigripes 07.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Thelaira nigripes 07.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 00:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Pieris brassicae 02.JPG

Copyright status: File:Pieris brassicae 02.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Pieris brassicae 02.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Corrections and suggestions

Hi AfroBrazilian, I have taken the liberty of correcting a few misidentifications in your latest batch of butterfly pictures. Please check your watchlist; you may also want to propagate the corrections to the page User:AfroBrazilian/LepidopteraOfLatvia. In general I would encourage you to have your IDs checked by experts before you upload your pictures here :-)

It would also be nice to add the location to the picture descriptions. And since I seem to understand that most of your pictures are from Latvia, you could categorize them in subcategories of Category:Lepidoptera of Latvia, to make them more visible to other users. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Carabus granulatus 02.JPG

---

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

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

picture

Dear Sir, I am coordinating the publication of a new textbook of zoology (in Italian) and I wonder whether it is possible to use your picture published in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ATrochosa_terricola_01.JPG

In the case, you will be credited for it. Thank you in advance for your attention.

Best regards Loriano

-- Loriano T. Ballarin, Associate Professor of Zoology Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Padova Via U. Bassi 58/B, 35100 Padova - Italy Tel.: +39 049 827 6197 Fax: +39 049 827 6199 Email: loriano.ballarin@unipd.it Website: https://sites.google.com/site/ascidianbiologylab/our-staff/loriano-ballarin — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.162.3.230 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I agree if You will use my pictures in Your textbook of zoology. If You will use it I must delete this pic. from wikimedias? My full name is Aleksandrs V. Balodis, Latvia.

P.S. I have gallery of arthropods. May be You will have interest in some of those. look --Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 19:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. You do not need to delete the picture from Wikimedia. I will send you an additional answer for arthropods. Loriano — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.162.3.230 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not at all) OK! Any questios please write me on e-mail afrobrazilian@inbox.lv --Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 15:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Trachys fragariae 01.JPG

Copyright status: File:Trachys fragariae 01.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Trachys fragariae 01.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi AfroBrazilian,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi AfroBrazilian,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ribautiana debilis 03.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ribautiana debilis 03.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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi AfroBrazilian,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Coccinula quatuordecimpustulata 03.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Coccinula quatuordecimpustulata 03.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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured video candidates

		We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
		Dear AfroBrazilian, Are you Interested in Film Making/Videography/Cinematography or Animated films? . Featured video candidates needs your help and you can help by reviewing , nominating your videos for the FV Tag. You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome ! -- Eatcha (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2019 (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)

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!

Affected:

• File:Memorial-Oskars Kalpaks 01.JPG

Yours sincerely, kyykaarme (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Statue-Džordžs Armitsteds, Rīgas pilsētas galva ar dzīvesbiedri Sesilu Pihlau 01.JPG

Yours sincerely, kyykaarme (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Bust-Leonīds Vīgners 01.JPG

Yours sincerely, kyykaarme (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Anopheles maculipennis 04.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Anopheles maculipennis 04.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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Apamea zeta

Hi AfroBrazilian, this picture is not Apamea zeta, but rather a dark form of Melanchra persicariae. I have Confirmed the determination by Jaakko Kullberg, M. Sc. (Biology) Collection Manager Finnish Museum of Natural History Division of Entomology, P.O.Box 17 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki

Can you please correct this? Tommyleelow (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Coenagrion hastulatum 02.JPG

The damselfly on this picture of yours looks more like Coenagrion johanssoni than C. hastulatum (see e.g. the marking on the base of the abdomen). Can you please check your determination? — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have fix it. Thenks for correction. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Location?

Hi AfroBrazilian - could you add some details of where you took File:Sitta europaea 02.JPG please? It will help with subspecies identification. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I add this information to picture. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 05:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Also for File:Podiceps cristatus 01.JPG and File:Podiceps cristatus 02.JPG, if you could, please :-) MPF (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anogcodes ustulata

Category:Anogcodes ustulata 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 category, 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!

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Jāņa Asara iela 04.JPG

And also:

• File:Jāņa Asara iela 05.JPG
• File:Jāņa Asara iela 06.JPG
• File:Jāņa Asara iela 07.JPG

Yours sincerely, Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Not Fruticicola fruticum

Hi AfroBrazilian! Here's something pretty interesting: 3 of your photos of snails, namely these: File:Fruticicola fruticum 02.JPG File:Fruticicola fruticum 03.JPG File:Fruticicola fruticum 04.JPG were identified incorrectly: the snails in the picture are not F. fruticum, but rather Monacha cartusiana, an invasive southern species. What makes it interesting is that you took the photos in 2013, at the time when this species was unknown in Latvia: it was only in 2021 when it was first officially observed in Riga by malacologists, in Zasulauks and around Spilve airport. Your observation predates theirs by almost a decade.

Please, edit the description of the photos to indicate the correct species. (Also, it would be good if you posted it on dabasdati.lv. - never mind, added a comment there.) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.191.96.90 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparentlx, there is no author response. Therefore, I changed the ID according to your comment because this cannot be Fruticicola fruticum because of the shells that are flat instead of globose. I have very little knowledge about snails, though. Nevertheless, I assume that your comment is correct. The images should be renamed and the incorrect name on the personal page should be fixed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Misidentification of File:Trifolium pratense 05.JPG

• 
• 

Hi AfroBrazilian, according to a very old discussion on the German Wikipedia that I initiated de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Biologie/Bestimmung/Archiv/Keller/004#Pflanzenbilder_mit_zweifelhafter_Bestimmung this is very probably Trifolium medium. The leaflets are too long in relation to their width for Trifolium pratense. Initially I even thought about Trifolium alpestre, but I cannot see a hairy calyx. I changed most of the wrong data, but the image should be renamed. You also use it on one of your personal pages with a wrong name (User:AfroBrazilian/Fabales). I could not correct the Latvian name because I do not know the correct Latvian name. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Additional note: I added another image, File:Trifolium (Trifolium) (.Trifolium) pratense.JPG to the gallery, which is also very likely Trifolium medium. In fact, it is in use on two Polish wiki pages for Trifolium medium, not for Trifolium pratense. I also changed the ID, but the image should be renamed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This pictures I make along time ago, I Latvia. I gave the name to pictured plants by compairing with other pictures in some resurces, so there can be mistakes in naming. This can be, becourse I`m not professional botanic. Sorry. I will move the manes to corret ones. Thenk You! Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 20:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Done! Thenk You for help once agein.) Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 20:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Lepidium campestre 03.jpg

• 

Hi AfroBrazilian, why had you this file renamed? It is categorized in Category:Lepidium virginicum, is identified in the description as Lepidium virginicum and it is used in several Wikis as Lepidium virginicum. In fact, it is certainly not Lepidium campestre, but very probably Lepidium virginicum. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This pincture name was moved since by other commons.wiki User. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 20:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the file mover did it following your move request here: [2]. In my opinion, everything looks quite typical for Lepidium virginicum. E.g., the leaves look sessile, but certainly not clasping as in Lepidium campestre. Lepidium campestre generally looks grey, because of many short hairs. Your plants do not look like this. By the way, your image is even used in the German Wikipedia, where it was added by a very trustworthy botanical expert whom I know. He would not have done this if this were Lepidium campestre. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• 
  leaves of Lepidium campestre
• 
  plant of Lepidium campestre
• 
  Lepidium virginicum

I submitted a rename request. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Decorative sculpture-Kumeliņš 01.JPG

And also:

• File:Decorative sculpture-Kumeliņš 02.JPG

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Monument-Otra Pasaules kara fašisma upuru piemiņai 03.JPG

And also:

• File:Monument-Otra Pasaules kara fašisma upuru piemiņai 04.JPG

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Statue-Alfreds Kalniņš 02.JPG

File:Statue-Alfreds Kalniņš 02.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!

KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Statue-Alfreds Kalniņš 01.JPG

File:Statue-Alfreds Kalniņš 01.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!

KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Statue-Andrejs Upīts 01.JPG

File:Statue-Andrejs Upīts 01.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)