User talk:Jokopein

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, Jokopein!
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.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give images better names[edit]

العربية  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  עברית  italiano  日本語  magyar  македонски  മലയാളം  Nederlands  polski  português  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  suomi  Tiếng Việt  Türkçe  українська  中文  +/−


I noticed you've uploaded File:02.05.2017 10-26-17-BA-W.2017 10-26-19.jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error. Please give uploaded files meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the file is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the file itself. Thanks, and happy editing!

- Reventtalk 21:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jokopein, I just changed the ID of your photograph shown above to Veronica persica. Veronica persica has got single flowers on long stalks arising from the axils of leaf-like bracts, whereas Veronica chamaedrys has got racemes of many flowers on stalks arising from the leaf axils. The individual flowers of Veronica chamaedrys have also got bracts, but these are tiny and do not look like ordinary leaves. So this must be Veronica persica (or possibly a lookalike species, which is very unlikely, though). With best regards, --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in my opinion the web page mentioned on your image page, i.e. [1], shows (from the top down): very probably Veronica chamaedrys, Veronica filiformis and three times almost certainly Veronica persica. Best regards, --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 00:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 misidentified spurge images[edit]

Hi Jokopein, I changed the ID of the plants in your three photographs left above to Euphorbia cyparissias. Euphorbia esula agg. has much wider leaves. Of course, identification of the plants on your personal site is also mostly wrong. There is a single image, the ninth from the top, that might belong to Euphorbia esula. With a leaf width of below 3 mm it should be Euphorbia cyparissias, but E. esula agg. with wider leaves. ID of the microspecies of Euphorbia esula agg. is a bit tricky. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)--[reply]