User talk:MPF/archive3

Was this an accident on done on purpose? If the latter, why did you remove it - did you not realize it was a book title, the book from which the image comes? I think someone else (or perhaps yourself) made a similar edit removing this category from another image in the book. Richard001 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be happening. Maybe I should rename it with the suffix "(book)" to avoid this confusion, and the category becoming smaller over time. Richard001 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. Are you really sure, though? I don't understand a thing about the subject :D, but I had someone helping identifying the picture for me. He could be wrong of course, but if you're sure, I can rename the image. Again, thanks for the help, Patrícia ^msg 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll rename the photo then, no need for a wrong name. Thank you so much! Patrícia ^msg 18:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you deleted a couple of non-redundant categories from this file. Please only remove categories that don't provide new information; for example Category:Animals eating fruit is not redundant to Category:Birds feeding because the latter doesn't say anything about what they're eating. When more files are categorized there will probably be a category specifically for birds eating fruit, which would then make both of the above unnecessary. Richard001 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and created Category:Birds eating fruit now. Richard001 (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying some of my gulls. A bunch of others (many of them mine from the same series as you identified already) can be found at Category:Unidentified Laridae. If you could help identify them, it would be great! Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you remove my changes in the category and article xCupressocyparis leylandii!? The name "Callitropsis (and Cupressus) × leylandii" appears on the English Wikipedia as a synonym. The correct name is xCupressocyparis leylandii. It belongs to the family xCupressocyparis.

Sources:

• ITIS
• [1]

Crusier (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! Nootka Cypress is treated in genus Callitropsis! (see Wikipedia!) Cypress macrocampa is Cypress only! Hybrid is not a Cupressus . It is a xCupressocyparis. Crusier (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find me a source in internet after 2002 which says that Nootka Cypress is Cupressus! Vietnamese Golden Cypress (Callitropsis vietnamensis) isn't treated in genus Cupressus! OMG! See IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This is probably a reliable source?

Sorry that the answer may be yes but I use translator (just to be sure that you understand, I am from Poland) Crusier (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at File:Ilex sp. 01.jpg and possibly give an opinion as to species? It was called a "Japanese or Chinese Holly" by the owner. Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, i see both x in × use. Are both correct or should it always be ×? If that's the case we should maybe rename some categories. Multichill (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made you two lists (cats and galleries). You can find them in my sandbox. Multichill (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Multichill - it's best (botanical recommended practice) to use the hybrid symbol × in hybrid plant names. The ICBN only recommends using x in situations where the × symbol isn't available (ref: Recommendation H.3A). Thanks for the lists! - MPF (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention - it is also a good idea to have category redirects from the x format to the × format (see e.g. Category:Tilia x euchlora). When I've moved x ones to × ones, I've always made the left-behind into a redirect. - MPF (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The × symbol is available, so we should rename everything, right? Multichill (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, best. Not very high priority perhaps, I move them when I run into them but I've never gone on a committed 'search and destroy' campaign - MPF (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like doing one? Galleries are easy, just move. Categories take a little more time. We'll each do half of them ;-) Multichill (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some but not immediately (tied up with other stuff for a day or two) - MPF (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A and B completed - MPF (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I repeat my notes accarding "×". Searching a hybrid, I think it is difficult to type this mark with the normal keyboard. We should use the hybrid name with a "x" as redirect also. Is it possible in categories? Orchi (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, category redirects do work (see the one above!). One other tip for the × symbol - if you have the edit toolbar enabled (click on 'my preferences' at the top of every page, → 'Editing', → tick 'Show edit toolbar'), then save, the × symbol is on it. - MPF (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MPF, with your help I personally do not have problems with "×", but I think every user worldwide should can use Commons without special operating instructions. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK, as all the necessary redirects will exist - MPF (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, could you please add {{flickrreview}} after the license tag (like [2]) when you upload images from flickr? See Category:Flickr review needed for a short explanation :) -- \mu/ 16:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

thumb|upside down or not? I have reverted your rotation there. The sun don't shine from earth ;) greetings, --Luxo 11:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this is where you disappeared to. Good to see you're still alive. Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just uploaded new image at File:HuvsgulAutumn.jpg because I saw you had no image of a whole forest in autumn yet. Is it useful? I took some more images on that day, so if you need something else, I could try and look if I have it. Regards, Yaan (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Now I understand the difference and I will be more careful in the future with my uploads. You may delete the mis-copied pictures I uploaded recently from Fliker. Cheers Aboluay (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd been narrowed down to Picea, but not any further. Thanks for that. The geocoding would be potentially misleading in this case as it was planted in a public park and an introduced species. Also, not in this case, but I often don't geocode plant images because they are in my garden. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always provided urls for the deletions I requested for (what I thought to be) inaccurately named species and genus categories.

Could you do the same thing? -- carol (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quick and very telling example: Category:Michelia figo:

• http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/13612
• http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=200008480 <--where it is native to
• http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=554961-1

The only location that I have found that says it is the name you moved it to is: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?452632 and wikispecies. -- carol (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (oh yeah, and some flickr galleries....) -- carol (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could move them back until you can set up the subgenus and stuff. Making the templates is not so difficult, especially as you seem to be so and are actually interested in the integrity of the information which is being presented here. Just using access to software to move things -- any idiot can do that with not too much of a skill base.... -- carol (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC) If I am to understand everything that you are saying (it is a little too early in my day to peruse this information cognitively) what you did was change everything back to a long ago circumscription with the claim that it is not the current circumscription. When the speed of sound had been determine to be inaccurate by .5 miles per hour, they did not go back to the old earth-centric celestial mapping to explain the movements of the planets in the night sky.[reply]

I would be available to explain what I know of template making for any person who is interested in the integrity of the information which is displayed here. -- carol (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...why remove this?Prashanthns (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was helpful. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why this was moved in the first place, but please don't delete categories like this. They should be left as category redirects. In this case, there is even a direct link to the category from the Wikipedia article of the same name, and now it goes to a dead, red link. Richard001 (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion moved to Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to encourage wider discussion - MPF (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions in the above template. The template has the following instructions for you "A user approved for this purpose should correct this by: * replacing this template with {{rename media|new file name here.jpg}}". I see no option for you in the template to change other peoples considered name changes. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the "image Regulus regulus -roadkill -Scotland-8.jpg", was discussed on the en wiki WP Birds talk page, and should not have been changed unilaterally by you. It was linked on the WP projects talk page, so we could see the link change colour when it was moved. I think that you have not been helpful over this image rename, and I have now re-uploaded the image myself from flickr with the new name, as specifically mentioned on the WP Birds talk page. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the en:wiki WP Birds talk page has to do with this. It is a Commons issue, not an en:wiki issue, and should have been raised on Commons, not there. I might also remind you that I was the first to identify the bird in the image, well before you raised it on en:wiki, so your somewhat abusive comments above are wholly inappropriate in that context: why did you for example, having seen my identification annotation, not give me any any notification of the further discussion on en:wiki? That was just as unhelpful, if not more so. - MPF (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw your allegation of "somewhat abusive comments". Snowmanradio (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I did not mean to imply that you were being deliberately unhelpful, and I understand that you were trying to assist. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Some time ago, you identified a picture of mine to be a hose sparrow. Recently I shot another house sparrow, I think a juvenile one. Could you id if it is a male or female, and add a bit of caption to it as well? Regards, --Muhammad (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. --Muhammad (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying my sound file, File:SND 4458a.ogg. Fg2 (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, thank you very much for categorzing - again and again and ... - unidentified trees and also for adding image notes, helping me to learn (much more) about trees in Switzerland 20px My best wishes for the New Year and best regards, Roland zh 03:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The species of File:Caracara cheriway-20081221.jpg and File:Caracara cheriway-20080420.jpg were changed. These are shots of immature birds that are are not easy to identify, however I believe the species of both to be Caracara cheriway and not Polyborus cheriway based on my conversations with the staff at the site these birds are located. What is the reference that you used to make this change and shouldn't this be discussed prior to making such significant changes? - Dougjj (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF - I understand, thanks. I'll add the birds' location categories and we'll be OK for now. -Dougjj (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, you and before User:Kilom691 identified Edwards engraving as picture of the Athene noctua which seems a reasonable determination for various reasons. Personally I am not fully convinced - when I saw this engraving for the first time I immediately associated Pigmy Owl. I know that Little Owl in english directly translates into "Athene noctua" and that from Edwards description ("came down the chimney") Glaucidium seems to be excluded - but the round head of the engraving really does not fit for Athene - what do you think? Regards, --Burkhard (talk)

Hello! Re your category deletion on File:Stefan Anderson & Mrs.jpg‎, so sad we don't have a category for "People with oak trees", isn't it, for that beautiful photo? Can you make one or should I try it? EmilEikS (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello my friend,
strange modification you did here.
"Category:Unidentified XXX" should be in 2 categories: "Category:XXX" and "Category:Unidentified XXXParent".
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liné - the cat I removed was one that was erroneous, to a completely unrelated family (Alaudidae, a family of birds, while Stylommatophora are snails!). How it got put there in the first place, I can't understand! - MPF (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I did the Alaudidae mistake!!! hihi ;-). This because I always copy/paste the same source and forgot a substitution.

I ow you 2 appologies ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add Greenland to this map? It is part of North America. File:North america blank range map.png 76.66.202.139 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would appreciate the help of a specialist to check/execute the moves and merges of the species related categories in [[::Category:Requested merges]] and [[::Category:Requested moves]]. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MPF, I changed your edits to Phaius tankervilleae. The correct name is here: [3]]. Only MBG says: Phaius tankervilliae. For Phaius tankervilliae I created a redirect. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the id again :-) --Muhammad (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please help in id'ing this? --Muhammad (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are in a zoo, not domesticated. If you consider that to be in a cage is a sign of domestication, this doesn't fit with the definition of domestication. Might be better to find another word then. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for using the "revert" button, i didn't want to offense you. As i never saw you before working on the tree of life, i thought it was a mistake from you, i will take care next time. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MPF! I want add more Mongolian flora pictures, but I'm working in a zoology field and I have some problems with flora definitions. For example I have several pictures of the relatively rare Nitraria genus plant, but I can not define it. Two species of Nitraria are known for me and I will upload'em soon. I see, you are checking nomenclature in Commons, but can you provide me a relevant source with pictures of plants? As this one. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your inquiry at my user talk...--MONGO (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, you are an administrator. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, how confident would you say you are on the different identification for that plant? That picture didn't include the identification tag, but I have others where the botanical gardens staff specifically identified that tree as a Red-Twig Dogwood. I grant it looks a lot like a horse-chestnut and I don't personally know how to id a dogwood. I just trusted the botanical garden's identification. - Taxman (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apachelytron transersum.png

Hi MPF,

I have a question, I nominated this image for deletion in March, It has yet to be looked at and a decision made. Who/where should i contact about this image, do you know? Thanks --Kevmin (talk)

Deleted; as a clear copyvio it is a case for speedy deletion. Not sure why it has escaped notice until now! - MPF (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of that? "Grape stomping" is not a synonym of grape pressing... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- it is not "slang", since it is by far the most widely used term (used in the names of two of the relevant images, File:Grape_Stomp_with_Airfield_Estates.jpg and File:Stomping_grapes_with_feet.jpg, by the way). Your actions in deleting a relevant specific category on highly-dubious prescriptivist grounds and replacing it with a more vague category do not seem to me to be any kind of real "improvement"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have no real objection to the category structure as it stands. However, for the record, stomping is not "slang"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a template and category for images from IPM Images, a sister site of Forestry Images, and unfortunately it appears many of the images are actually noncommercially licensed. Could you delete them for me? I've listed all the affected images below. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll deal with them later today - MPF (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task complete! - MPF (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a complete bot-assisted search of the category and got the following list of noncommercial images. Please delete. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I'll deal with them later today - MPF (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task complete! - MPF (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know correctly. But this tree grows in North-East Europe, Petersburg, Russia--Mossir (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof that the Chicago's Museum of Science & Industry's Christmas Around the World exhibit contains artificial trees? I was under the impression that they decorated real trees. Here's the diff to the edit in question. Royalbroil 04:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm almost certain they were real trees as the visitor and photograph. I did look at my original photograph and I can't tell for certain. I'll move the category back except if I would get disproven. I just bought a new DSLR camera, so my photos are much clearer now! I still think it's an excellent photograph considering the conditions, as long as you don't zoom in and look at each pixel. Royalbroil 00:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mistake. Should the image be renamed or deleted? Rl (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the location. Turns out it was in a botanical garden, so it could be pretty much anything. Unfortunately, I don't have pictures with the leaves in focus. File:2007 chelidonium majus.jpg is not much use as it is, so I suggest you delete the picture. Sorry about the mess. Rl (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! - MPF (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

--J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albinism = Hair, feathers or scales all uniformly pure white with no pigments, eyes red or dark pink, skin pale pink (due to blood haemoglobin)
Partial albinism = Hair, feathers or scales with white with no pigments in patches of varying size, the rest being normal colour; usually normal colour eyes
Leucism = Hair, feathers or scales all with uniformly diluted colour, usually normal colour eyes

That is absolutely not true. The best known albinism gene ist the tyrosinase gene (oculocutan albinism type 1 - OCA1) see here which colors there result of it mutations in the mouse:

• II. The c (Albino) Series of Alleles
• for oculocutan albinism type 2 - OCA2 The p-Locus (Pink-Eyed Dilution)
• for oculocutan albinism type 3 - OCA3 The b-Locus
• for oculocutan albinism type 4 - OCA4 Section N. Underwhite (uw)

You read much to old texts about albinism. What formerly was called partial albinism in fact is due to mutations of leucism-loci and diluted colors usually are due to Albinism-Loci. There are exeptions to this rules, but usually it is true.

--Kersti (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spottet animals formerly were called "partial albinos" but in fact ARE partial leucistic.

Leucism: In former times people didn't know that different mutations of the same genes lead to spotting patterns and white animals with dark eyes. So the black eyed white were called leucistic and the spotted ones partial albinotic. Today both are called leucistic - one fully leucistic and one partly leucistic.

Albinism: And formerly they didn't know that different mutations of the same genes lead to red eyed whites an diluted colors. Like this, red eyed whites were called albinos and it was said, that the ones with diluted colors have "dilution genes" - in fact dilution genes and albinism genes often are different alleles of the same gene, therefore today both is called albinism.

In albinism the melanin is not produced correctly an this is the reason of the lack of color.

In Leucism the cells, wich produce Melanin dont leave the neural crest correctly and therefore are not everywhere were they should be.

--Kersti (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look for the answer on may talk page. --Kersti (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF - Sandro Pignatti in his "Flora d'Italia" ("Flora Of Italy", volume 1, page 42) says that the Equisetum arvense's sheath has 8 to 12 teeth and its stem is 10 to 50 centimeters tall, whereas the Equisetum telmateja's sheath has 20 to 30 teeth and its stem is 50 to 200 centimeters tall. From the shoot i made these countings: ENBLA01=12, ENBLA02=10, ENBLA03=6, ENBLA04=6, ENBLA05=stesso di ENBLA02, ENBLA06=16, ENBLA07=the same of ENBLA02, ENBLA08=12. Moreover, all the stems that I photographed doesn't pass 30 to 40 centimeters. Really, I don't know what I have to do. I'm waiting for an answer.--Enrico Blasutto (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Loon Lake that I uploaded from flickr. I learned some stuff. --Droll (talk)

Discussion regarding the Categories "Fossil xxx" is occurring on Wp:ToL (here). As a member of the project you input is requested in to gain a larger view of the communities opinion on how to handle the points raised. Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note :-) I'm still working on the map, so it's not a problem to make changes. Nova (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, MPF!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Stuartia ovata.gif was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Accipiter cooperi tree.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Asperula arvensis1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Elaeagnus commutata USDA2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

• Thank you for identifying the gull in the picture. --Estormiz (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MPF,

Could you not wait a little bit before deleting this picture of major botanic interest?

I was in close contact with the author of this picture. He changed in the meantime the licence of it on Flickr to "Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial". See his e-mail hereafter for confirmation of it. If this now is OK, please revert as soon as possible the deletion of this picture of major botanic interest.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply)

De: Steve Covey

Objet: Re: Acis ionica image

À: "Réginald Hulhoven"

Date: Lundi 28 Septembre 2009, 19h18

Hi Réginald,

I have now made both images Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial which should be :sufficient I think. I hope that works out OK now.

Cheers,

Steve.[VC7/8]

http://www.wiltshiredragonflies.org.uk

http://www.wildlife-galleries.co.uk/

http://wiltshire-dragonfly-news.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15121707@N00/

Dear MPF,

Thank you for your quick reply. I have copied it and sent it to Steve Covey. I hope he will agree to change the license to one of the two which are acceptable for Commons.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply)

I have replied to you comment on my discussion page. I'm affraid I can't find the recommendation you write about and the usage in ICBN is still Mentha ×smithiana, not Mentha × smithiana. H.3A.1.note 1 is about hybrid formulas as : Mentha spicata × Mentha ×verticillata or Elymus × Hordeum. All Wiki project has "×" and there is no need for using "x" at all. I'm affraid I don't agree that the hypothetical Rosa ×anthina is such a problem to not follow the code usage. epibase (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, thank you very much for the identification of many trees and plants in respectively your remarks/notes on images i uploaded last weeks :-)) I appreciate your work very much! Best regards by an absolutely botanical amateur (in German: "Dummies"), Roland zh 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

MPF, thanks so much for taking the time to correct my bad species identification of the cormorant...I have posted the latest info regarding the image at the following link below...--MONGO (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

Dear MPF,

I have succeeded in convincing the author to change the license. The license is now cc-by-sa.

He has done the same for another picture of the same plant ([5]), that consequently may also be uploaded.

I have re-uploaded this picture and the second one I have named File:Acis ionica.jpg.

Hopefully everything is now OK. Best regards, --Réginald (To reply)

I saw that you have changed my map. I know the users can do this but my map's colours was harmonius. But the map that you made is inharmonius. I'm watin' for your answer. Good works. --Zoologist (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This file that I was talkin' about. --Zoologist (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do not agree that you rename genuses with a popular name, such as category:Sylvia (genus) towards category:Sylvia. Those names are too much used in many languages and create too much confusion. I created an example of the Sylvia one. Please issue rename requests or CFD's for such items. --Foroa (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should use "(bird)", "(beetle)", "(plant)"...

"(genus)" is often ambiguous, so it is not a good way to disambguate ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston in USA. Can you fix the category? I am not a native speaker and always confuse latter :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you use an image from flickr, always order a {{Flickrreview}} because if the flickr review bot does not mark an image in time and the flickrowner changes the license as in this image: File:Pinus densiflora Towada.jpg (see here where it is now All Rights Reserved), it will be deleted. To avoid this problem, type in flickr review--as I show above--in the image file.

I have been marking some of your images from flickr and you never type in a {{Flickrreview}} for them and so, they can be deleted at any time. Once an image passes flickr review, it is non-revocable and cannot be deleted on Wikicommons like this image here even though the flickr owner later changes the license on the flickr link:

• File:Hirayachi by Blue Lotus in Okinawa.jpg See this where the flickrreview bot marks the image after flickrreview has been typed in. The bot marks images 4 times a day.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Its good that you order flickrreviews today. Sorry I did not know you were an Admin here. Its good that you can pass the image by yourself. Anyway, I was too busy to check your profile. As for the flickr owner, I would not recommend contacting him due to his strict statement here. As an aside, I would not recommend that you mark your own uploads. I always get the bot or another Admin to mark my images...so there can be no doubt apart from this exception. Regards from BC, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying the Coscoroba Swan in my photo at the London Wetland Centre. Patche99z (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if File:YosemiteForestPlantlife.jpg may be Calocedrus decurrens? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in making a species category when there is only one species in the genus? as here and here. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's done. Sting (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, thanks forthe identification of "Maryhill unidentified 01.jpg", I've tagged it fro renaming to the species binomial. If you have a chance could you look at this Fabaceae tree, which was also on the Maryhill grounds?

Hi MPF, this is a bit of an off the wall question, but I was wondering what the consensus is on nominating ones own image for quality/featured/valued image status. I have always felt that I shouldn't nominate my own images, but am saddened by the lack of images of fossils which have these stats. can you recommend anyone to look through the cats. and galleries for qualifying images? again sorry for the random question and thanks for any guidance you can give.--Kevmin (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cephas - nice work on these! If / when on creating a map and placing it in its species category [[Category:Genus species]], if the category appears as a redlink (does not exist!), can you create the relevant category, by entering [[Category:Genus|species]] in it, please? Also if the genus category itself is a redlink, add [[Category:Icteridae]] (or whatever other family you are working on!). Thanks! PS I've created the missing categories for the Icteridae maps you've already done in the last few days.

Hello MPF, I use to create missing pages at first, but was confused with the structure of them. For example, here on Category:Sturnella militaris, there is a page Sturnella militaris. Why two pages for the same species? Thank you. --Cephas (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe on this

you could identify the trees?!

Greetings --Alex1011 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Alex1011 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi. please tell me if I chose a good license at this painting of a painter dead in 1907 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Sofronie_Miclescu.jpg). Thanks. Cezarika1 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the photo of the painting is made by other person? Cezarika1 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If we don't know the author of a postcard image, how we can act? Cezarika1 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. You helped me much. Cezarika1 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Tell me if the image of mortuary photo (on the cross) can be uploaded on Commons. The cemetery is a public place. Cezarika1 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help me to find the answer. Cezarika1 (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added a category to this image the day after the upload. Did you happen to check the license on Flickr? If so please comment the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please look at Category talk:People with trees. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The exactly scientific name is rubus caesius. --je-str (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leaf had actually three leafs. I have only the middle left to stand. The scars can not be seen because they are outside the picture. Tomorrow I'm doing a photo from the bush, from which the leaf is. --je-str (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[6] You have universally replaced an image by a different one. It was a promoted image on the VI project and it resulted in quite a mess. Please revert the bot's actions. If a picture is misidentified, you should properly identify it, and perhaps warn the reusers, but not push the image you like instead! I honestly think it is a mistaken use of the tools here. --Eusebius (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend,
if you want to make a cat follow en:International Ornithological Congress classification, you can use the templates:
* {{Genera|Sylvia|source=ioc2.2}}
* {{IOC|warblers|Passeriformes|Sylviidae }}
That will generate:

• Included genera (for IOC classification 2.2):

Sylvia

• IOC link: Sylviidae in order Passeriformes subcat

Hello, I see that you have introduced a category for bird illustrations from Brockhaus_and_Efron_Encyclopedic_Dictionary, which is a good idea indeed. I would like to know why you have removed the species categories I had put to some of those images, such as Calypte anna for File:Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary b30 678-2.jpg. It seems to me that in doing so, you cause the loss of some information, that I have spent time to enter.

Yours, Frédéric (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more than 20 photos of the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Palace_of_the_Parliament. 79.112.34.190 07:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Busuresti-Intercontinental.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.19.138 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.18.133

All these images violate the copyright law of Romania. 79.112.34.190 07:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You renamed File:Cute duck, cute young women, in Pangnirtung.jpg to File:Two women with duckling, in Pangnirtung.jpg; I don't object in theory to the move, but it's currently at Deletion Review, and you broke the link from the image to the deletion review and vice versa. Images at deletion review should probably not be moved for that reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that renaming can make "a mess". I think I fixed the links. --MGA73 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? It seems to be doing well enough at DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see File_talk:Anser_albifrons.JPG. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Federal Hall NYC 22.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this, you are right, the photographs here are not free, also not accoring to the websites terms. Yours? --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No, not mine; I just happened to spot the Calphotos credit at the bottom of the page, and know that they are not PD-US. Guess I'll have to see if any of the other pics on that page are also uploaded (I'd just been sorting the Arctostaphylos pics when I found it) - MPF (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copied your answer back I meant if you will delete them or I ;) the search for the author name only leads to unfree images as far as I can see. I will check them and delete. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Seems to be a much larger problem, continued at User_talk:Stickpen#US_Forest_Service_photos. --Martin H. (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, a huge task! - MPF (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so, my idea at the moment is to collect all files (just doing this), figure out the problem, request all files in the category for {{PDreview}} and announce the problem to Commons:PD files reviewers. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good idea. Each one will need to be checked individually; some will be genuine PD-USGov and can be kept, others won't; the source USFS pages should say, but it isn't always very clear. - MPF (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I guess I am responsible for the mess in {{Low quality}}. Could you be more specific about what was wrong please, so I can fix it? Thanks!

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Thanks to your explanation, I think I have been able to fix it. I had not noticed that an alternate rationale, other than the "very small, blurry..." thing could be given to the template (seems that it is displayed for English users only, that's also why I did not notice). So, well, indeed, I broke everything , but I believe it is okay now. I'll try to be more careful next time! Thanks again, Jean-Fred (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Do you realize that by removing category:Lepus arcticus groenlandicus as a distinct category, you are emptying category:Animals of Greenland of some of its contents ? Teofilo (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I've added Category:Animals of Greenland to Category:Lepus arcticus, "

This is the wrong thing to do, because that category contains pictures of hares in Canada. Teofilo (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong; this is a Little Egret. I can't comprehend how people keep confusing these birds. It would be polite to ask first, especially when you so obviously don't know them (or their regional variations?).

• Great Egret's bare facial skin extends in a dagger shape behind the eye. They're big. The have a long neck with a very distinct kink. They have a flat-topped head profile that aligns with the top of their bill. They don't run after fish in shallows (as this bird is doing).
• Little Egrets are small. The bare facial skin does not extend behind the eye. They have a domed-top head. And yellow-soled feet - as the photo illustrates!