User talk:SAplants

If you leave a message here, I will answer it here. So check back later.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and reply as soon as I can.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cleome oxyphylla var. oxyphylla 1DS-II 7377.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. Very small resolution for a EOS 1. --XRay 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cleome oxyphylla var. oxyphylla 1DS-II 7380.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 20:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Momordica balsamina 1DS-II 1-6573.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 20:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Momordica balsamina 1DS-II 1-6883.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cissus quadrangularis 1DS-II 7167.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea acaulos 1DS-II 3-5862.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 Appropriate COM:Categories should be added. Same applies for the other four nominations by yours (and actually for all your uloads). --A.Savin 11:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]  Done --SAplants 15:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Wrong, there are still no appropriate categories --A.Savin 16:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry, now correct --SAplants 22:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Nope --A.Savin 01:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]  Done Hopefully finally fixed. --SAplants 06:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC) OK for me --A.Savin 23:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea aristata 1DS-II 1-C4962.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea compacta 0345.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 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea aurea subsp. potbergensis 0276.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. --Livioandronico2013 21:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea aurea subsp. potbergensis 0282.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 17:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea lepidocarpodendron 1DS-II 1-8320.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea eximia 1DS-II 1-C4665.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. --Peulle 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] User:Peulle, can you explain your double standard of assessing the DoF between the two Protea flowerheads? Obviously, the DoF is the same, but one image is supported and the other declined. --Cccefalon 20:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (however, for this photo, I agree the support --Cccefalon 21:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea laetans 0314.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 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea amplexicaulis 1DS-II 3-8346.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea grandiceps 1DS-II 3-5554.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. --Johann Jaritz 07:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Protea laurifolia 1DS-II 3-5543.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. --Johann Jaritz 07:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on 10 August 2018 you uploaded two very good images (Leucospermum pedunculatum 1DS-II 3-8362.jpg and Leucospermum pedunculatum 1DS-II 3-8365.jpg) but you may have made a mistake in their IDs. L. pedunculatum and L. prostratum look like each other. Both have trailing stems, ascending and entire leaves without teeth, perianth lobes that are free and curl back on themselves, straight or somewhat curved styles topped by cylindric pollen-presenters. L. pedunculatum has branches that originate from a crown atop the stout main trunk of up to 30 cm (12 in) high, creamy flowers that age to carmine pink, and a style of 1¾–2 cm (0.7-0.8 in) long. L. prostratum differs in having branches emerge from the ground, yellow flowers that age to orange and styles of 1–1½ cm (0.4–0.6 in) long. So I think you pictured L. pedunculatum. If you agree, you may want to change titles and descriptions of those images. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dwergenpaartje, Thank you very much for alerting me to the wrong identification; much appreciated! Fully agree with your suggestion, and will implement the correction. Please feel free to let me know if you spot mistakes in any of my other uploads. Best regards, SAplants (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SAplants,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) 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 the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.

Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@SAplants: Hello SAplants,
First: Thanks for your excellent pictures!
....do you think, that the fifth link on genus galleries is required? Already four times links to the accompanying category (most only with text) exist.
Regards. Orchi (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchi: Hi Orchi, Thanks for your message; also for the kind words. In my view a Gallery Page Template on a Gallery Page serves a very useful purpose, namely to ensure that those looking for images on Commons see all potential images (obviously, this must be one of the principal reasons why such a template has been made available in the first instance). For you and me, who are familiar with the workings of Commons, it may seem an overkill to add the template, but not for casual or new users. For some years, I have been such a casual user myself, and it always puzzled me why, following a search for a particular topic, I sometimes land on a page with relatively few images (Gallery Page; apparently the default), whereas at times a page with “Category” before the search term, but one that often contains many more images (Category Page). I can assure you that for new or casual visitors to Commons it is not at all immediately obvious that a dual system of pages is employed (no doubt a potential source of confusion), nor that you can navigate form a Gallery Page to a Category Page by clicking on the generic names. What the template does is to alert such visitors in no uncertain terms as to where they can find more images. Should our principal aim not be to make it as easy as possible for users/visitors to navigate Commons and to easily retrieve all potential images? Personally I would prefer to see such a Gallery Template be added to all Gallery Pages (unless, of course, if what is in the Category Page matches exactly what is in the Gallery Page). You obviously seem to question the merits of such an approach aimed at ensuring greater accessibility, which I respect. Hence if you insist that no Gallery Page Template be used for members of Orchidaceae, I will comply. Alternatively, you may want to tolerate me adding them for the few genera native to southern Africa, from where most of my plant images originate. What do you think? Best regards, SAplants (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SAplants: Hello SAplants,

Thank you very much for your detailed answer.

I think, we will reach a compromise on this issue.

The genera galleries have usually only one identification image with a link to the corresponding species.

With the „Gallery Page Template“, the introductory part of these genera-pages become even larger.

I can follow your argumentation in many cases in the species galleries.

By the way, the assignment of your good pictures in all wikis has priority for me.

Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchi: Hi Orchi, Thanks for your reply and understanding; much appreciated! Having now spent a little more time on Orchidaceae pages, I am impressed by how well organized they are compared to those of some other plant groups. No doubt this is, in no small measure, due to the care and precision with which you have been editing the various contributions. I really appreciate your time and effort, especially to move some images to Gallery Pages and other wikis. Agree that it would be best to add Gallery Page Templates sparingly and only when really needed, as for instance to some Species Galleries. In any case, I would leave such decisions in your capable hands. Thanks again, and best regards, SAplants (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.....I suppose, we will work well together.

With a flower greeting from Europe. Regards. Orchi (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SAplants:
.....I am glad, that you are here again. Regards. Orchi (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchi: Hi Orchi, Thanks for your welcoming message. Glad to be back; also to see that you are still holding the fort at the orchids. You should see more of me in the coming weeks. Thanks again, and best regards, SAplants (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi SAplants, 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.

-- CptViraj (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]