User talk:Fungus Guy

Welcome to the Commons, Fungus Guy!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. 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. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Image:Lathyrus_japonicus,_Pancake_Bay_PP.jpg

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what happened there, but thanks! Issues have been resolved. --Fungus Guy 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ID of Goodyera orchid

Hi. I believe your image Image:Goodyera_repens,_Herrick_Twp.jpg is really Goodyera oblongifolia. As I said at the description page, repens has thin white "windowpane" lines on the leaves, as in this picture. What do you think? JerryFriedman (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think at all about other Goodyera species. But here's a reliable-looking page on G. tesselata that seems to eliminate it, so I think you were right to go ahead with oblongifolia. JerryFriedman (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Polystichum braunii, Pancake Bay PP.jpg

This is not Polystichum braunii. Polystichum braunii has letter doubly - leathered. Selso (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Usage

Hi Fungus Guy,

I am interested in using your image of Nodding Trillium http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nodding_trillium_flower_-SC_woodlot-_3.JPG as part of an interpetive sign being created for G. Richard Thompson Wildlife Management Area. The site is open to public at no charge. The file is posted under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license - but the desired method of attribution is not specified. Thanks for sharing your images.

Steve Wildlife Biologist Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries

Citing Source

Hello!

I am interested in using your goslings picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goslings_%28Clergue_GS%29_7.JPG#filehistory in a little children's book (commercial use). Under the license agreement, I was wondering how I should cite it? Thank you so much! The picture is perfect!

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For all the great photographs you've uploaded. I just wanted to let you know that your contributions are appreciated. INeverCry 06:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• PS - I've made you Autopatrolled. INeverCry 06:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

a request

Please don't hijack the contents of existing categories, as you did with the contents of Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener-Waterloo. I have initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario. Geo Swan (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Neuville, Québec

I am not sure if a town with only 12 monuments sould have a category. I think a town sould at least have 20 monuments (There is 7 municipalities with at least 20 monuments). --Fralambert (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Over-categorization

Hello, Fungus Guy. Per Commons:Categories#Over-categorization, please remove parent categories when you add specific ones. Examples:

• File:Love House 01.JPG and the other three images do not need to be in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Canada once you added Category:Love House
• File:Bells Dry Goods Store, Burnaby, BC 01.jpg does not need to be in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in British Columbia once you added Category:Bell's Dry Goods Store (FYI, the official name is Bells, without the apostrophe)

Many thanks for reducing future work. Thundersnow (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Canada

Do you feel like helping out getting the remaining images sorted? I already did most of them. Multichill (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help! You whittled down 1700+ photos down to 200-and-some, which is a big help. Most of the rest have incorrect historic IDs, so I'll track them down and correct them as best I can. Fungus Guy (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, no talk page hopping, I'm running low on bunnies.

Thanks for sorting out the images! Multichill (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear Fungus Guy, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 05:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Powerscourt bridge

The translation of Immeuble patrimonial heritage immovable. It's probably a therm who come from the Civil Code or someting like that. --Fralambert (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Je ne savais pas que c'était la traduction officielle. Fungus Guy (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dominion_Hotel

Dominion Hotel has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Geo Swan (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work!

		The Category Barnstar
		For your tireless work categorizing historic buildings in Canada. Much appreciated by all. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi! Help me out please. Why do you want to rename 57-63 St. Louis Street National Historic Site of Canada to Category:57–63 St. Louis Street National Historic Site (without the Canada)? I think you tagged a few more. Your 2cents (US, Canadian or Euro) much appreciated! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Good day! I find that "of Canada" is superfluous. Unless another country uses the verbiage "National Historic Site" and they have an historic site with the same name, there is no need to specify NHS of Canada. In my opinion, but you're more than welcome to disagree :) Fungus Guy (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The USA uses the same wording. The locations will be different. :) I think it actually makes sense to leave Canada in. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you renaming all Quebec municipalities to use "(Québec)" disambiguation?

It runs counter to our naming conventions (not to mention the previous standardization of Quebec categories). Was there a discussion of some kind? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It seemed that most cities in Québec were labelled as such, and thought that might have been the standard convention. Will change them back to Cityname, Quebec. Fungus Guy (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No doubt many were misnamed, and I hate complaining when someone is trying to clean something up. But for locations we typically use commas. The wise User:Foroa recently said in a discussion, to wide agreement, that we should be using commas for the "where", and brackets for the "what" (e.g. Mont-Tremblant, Quebec vs. Mont Tremblant (mountain)). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To give some example of what I mean when I say most cities in Québec are labelled as "Cityname (Québec)", see Category:Cities and towns of Montérégie. I've just started converting them to "Cityname, Quebec", but each and every city has the French-style naming convention. Which is why I thought that might be the standard. I know English wikimedians prefer English, but wikimedians from other languages tend not to care what we think - see, for example, Category:Cities and villages in Ain (France) or any other Cities and villages category in France. All French-language countries seem to have the same convention, "Cityname (Province)", same on the French-language Wikipédia. And since la belle province is French-only by law... That's my two cents, but again, I'm still working on converting them to the standard (English) convention. It was a pain to always check the name of the city when moving cultural heritage monuments into cities--comma or parentheses, Quebec or Québec. Fungus Guy (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. Even though I'm anglophone, it pains me to spell Québec without the accent. Cheers.

Also, if I could get your opinion on something--I intend to spell out RCM to Regional County Municipality, as most people outside Québec would not know what RCM means. My question: how should I spell out TEs? I was thinking either Territory Equivalent to a Regional County Municipality, Equivalent Territory, or perhaps just use Census Agglomeration. Thoughts? Fungus Guy (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for not responding. Just saw these notes now. Yes, "Cityname (province/state/region)" is the way it's done in a lot of languages. It's more a question of consistency on Commons (although there are exceptions everywhere). Frankly, disambiguation on the Commons is a complete and utter mess, and if I had more energy and felt like shepherding through what would inevitably be a lengthy and rambling discussion, I'd try and establish a guideline/policy so that we can standardize disambiguation. I believe that Wikivoyage uses bracket disambiguation for everything, even in English for places, for the sake of consistency. But, in the meantime, we should maintain whatever consistency we do at least have at the moment.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on Québec or Quebec. I'm not sure that English wikimedians prefer English per se, although some do, but again I think it is usually a consistency issue and Quebec is more common in English (although I see Québec more and more often in English, and it is undoubtedly becoming more common as the years pass). My only strong opinion is the awful "Québec City", a mangling of two languages that is correct in neither - call it Québec, the city of Québec/Quebec or Quebec City, but using "Québec City" is just awful. :) I have no real thoughts on RCMs, but I think you have already move forward on that. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Chatham-Kent

Hello. Just a heads-up that Category:Cities and towns of Chatham-Kent is a bit of a head-scratcher, because under Ontario law Chatham-Kent is effectively a city. Unlike every other locale in Category:Cities and towns in Ontario by census division, Chatham-Kent isn't an upper-tier municipality or district that contains lower-tier municipalities like cities and towns. Technically, the subcats in this category are for places that are more akin to neighbourhoods than incorporated towns. Having said that, people likely still colloquially refer to places like Bothwell and Wallaceburg as towns, so the category name might be okay. It's up to your good judgment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Was debating that with myself as well... it's a weird county/city blend. Thinking "Communities of ___" would work better. Fungus Guy (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A puzzle for you

Hello, Fungus Guy! I‘ve noticed your interest in historic buildings, and would welcome any thoughts you may have about the unidentified “Brown Building“ in Edmonton; I have started a discussion at File talk:The brown building (HS85-10-28351).jpg. And thanks for all your work on categorizing the WLM/HPC material.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm stumped. I'll assume this building no longer exists (a shame, since this looks like a really great example of early Chicago-school architecture). Did some cursory searches and came up empty. Good luck with the IDing! Fungus Guy (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. If my guess is right, the bottom two floors were extant when the postcard (?) was published (but not necessarily when the rendering was done), and the rest were never built. I don’t know much about architecture, but a graphic-designer acquaintance, who studied architecture at Rhode Island, happened to drop by my workplace today, and I showed him the picture: he also thought it was early Chicago style, with features foreshadowing Art Deco. Incidentally, while searching I came across File:Brown Building.jpg from Kansas, which might have fooled me except for having been built in the late ’20s. Anyway, I’ll let you know if I make any progress.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear Fungus Guy, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Have you ever considered....

...becoming an Admin here on the Commons? Is that something that you would be interested in pursuing? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe? Not sure what that entails--abilities, responsibilities and such--but I'm definitely intrigued. Fungus Guy (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I happen to think you'd make a good Admin. You have a good understanding of process, proper categorization and Commons policies, and you seem to be very level-headed in your interactions with other contributors. You can read Commons:Administrators#What is an administrator? on what is involved. In addition to assisting the community, the admin tools would help you with renaming categories and files, etc. You certainly have enough edits overall to qualify. The one area lacking is more involvement in discussions at COM:DR, COM:CFD, COM:VP, etc. - but that is something you could work on a bit over the next few months if you were interested. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Maison Claude-Gilbert-et-Claire-Gagnon

I am pretty sure that File:Maison Claude-Gilbert-et-Claire-Gagnon.jpg is not the house in question. If I follow google earth, the Maison Claude-Gilbert-et-Claire-Gagnon is the neighbour of maison Vézina and not directly on the avenue Royale. The house in the picture share the same entrance as maison Chagnon, and is also in the site patrimonial de la Chute-Montmorency. --Fralambert (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right-- the HPC site does mention it is beside maison Vézina. Have started a discussion on the category talk page. Fungus Guy (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear Fungus Guy, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Upper Hot Springs, Banff

I moved the pool photos back to the main category: the Historic Sites page for the bathhouse is explicit that only the building is included, and the pool area is outside that footprint. Part of the Residence is just visible in the corner of one of the shots, but I didn't think it worth categorizing for that; YMMV.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Universalism

I have serious doubts about this edit and some similar ones that re-classify an old Universalist church as a "Unitarian Universalist church". This was never a Unitarian Universalist church. It ceased to be a church long before the Unitarian Universalist merger.

Similar (but not identical) issues arise for Category:Saint Paul's Universalist Church (Meriden, Connecticut). This one did survive into the UU era, but its main notability was as a 19th-century and early 20th century Universalist church.

Because Unitarianism is a far better known doctrine than the Universalism, edits like this have the inadvertent effect of erasing a piece of religious history. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The only other solution I was able to come up with was "Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches in ..." but that seemed too verbiose. Fungus Guy (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps churches like your first example could be placed in "Former Universalist churches in ...", but if they survived into the Unitarian Universalist merger, then they should be labelled as such, in my humble opinion. Fungus Guy (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (ec) How about Unitarian and Universalist as parent categories, with Unitarian Universalist (being in some sense a derivative) as a child of both? Buildings that housed both pre- and post-merger congregations could be placed in both categories. A little messy, but I think would prevent incorrect inferences from being made.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalist churches already has Unitarian churches and Universalist churches as a parent category, but I see what you're saying. Perhaps if someone knew specifically which churches were not UU, then they could be broken off into Unitarian or Universalist churches in ... I just saw a bunch of churches, most of which were listed as both Unitarian and Universalist, and merged them (after checking that they did in fact merge, at least in North America). I thought some churches might not fit (like protestant churches in Canada that chose not merge into the United Church of Canada), but that by consolidating and organizing the pics as I did, discussions like this would happen on a church-by-church basis for those not belonging to UU. It worked faster than I thought :) Fungus Guy (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cities and towns of Alberni-Clayoquot

Category:Cities and towns of Alberni-Clayoquot has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

.Skookum1 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:American_craftsman_style_in_the_United_States

American craftsman style in the United States has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fort Whoop-Up

Hello! That photo shows the 1967 replica of the fort that‘s located in the City of Lethbridge. The actual site is some distance away—just outside the city limits—and may not even be publicly accessible. (See HPC.) That’s why I removed the tag from the image a while ago. The situation might be analogous to that of Fort Edmonton, where the park containing a modern recreation of that fort, located elsewhere in the city, is in its own cat with a See also. (I note that the enWP article perpetuates this misidentification; I should probably do something about that.) Anyway, what are your thoughts, generally about the categorization of elsewhere-located replicas, or on this particular case?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question. There currently are no pictures of the original site, but there may be in the future, so I agree they should be separate categories. I don't know what the re-creation site is called, other than Fort Whoop-Up. Fungus Guy (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Its full name appears to be Fort Whoop-Up National Historic Site. FWIW it’s located in Indian Battle Park.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The HPC site also calls it 'Fort Whoop-Up National Historic Site of Canada'. Perhaps the re-creation should be under 'Indian Battle Park'? Fungus Guy (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That might be the least confusing approach, and would avoid our having to ‘invent’ a disambiguating name for either site. The replica fort may not be the only attraction in the park, but it does seem to be the most conspicuous.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I just see the conversation, just note that the original site is named Fort Whoop-Up Archaeological Site by the Alberta Register of Historic Places. I alson found this 1881 picture of the original fort the Library and Archives Canada site. --Fralambert (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I just found a another exemple of the same subject Category:Fort William Historical Park is a replica of the original fort, who located in downtown Thunder Bay. --Fralambert (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Volcanoes and thunderbirds 2.JPG

File:Volcanoes and thunderbirds 2.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!

Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Volcanoes and thunderbirds 1.JPG

File:Volcanoes and thunderbirds 1.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!

Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ashbridge_Estate

Ashbridge Estate has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Bennett_Lake,_British_Columbia

Bennett Lake, British Columbia has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fairmont,_British_Columbia

Category:Fairmont,_British_Columbia has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo permission File:Nodding_trillium_flower_-SC_woodlot-_1.JPG

Hello fungusguy,

My name is Karla Linder, and I work at Adventure Publications in Cambridge, MN (www.adventurewithkeen.com). We’re currently working on a book called, “Wildflowers of Northeast Quick Guide” which is due out Spring 2020.

We’re writing because we have an interest in using your image(s) in our book:

Image: Nodding trillium (Trillium cernuum) flower Sault College woodlot, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada Link:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Trillium_cernuum#/media/File:Nodding_trillium_flower_-SC_woodlot-_1.JPG

As we understand it, you’ve shared the image(s) on Wikipedia and it is under terms of the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Under some licenses we do not need to ask for your permission to use your image(s), but it is our company policy to do so anyway. To avoid the possibility of any uncertainty, we’d like to simply get your outright permission, as the copyright remains with you.

After your initial permission is granted, we will contact you via your Wikimedia account and request an email address &/or physical address to send you a Permission Agreement.

Once the Permission Agreement is signed, we will need to know how your photo credit should read and we will request a large hi-res (300 dpi, 3072 x 2048 or larger) version of image(s), if possible.

Please send your reply to the email listed below. Please let us know what you think, and thanks.

Karla Linder Production karla@adventurewithkeen.com --Karlaadventure (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Karla Linder

Category:Assumption_Park_in_Windsor,_Ontario

Category:Assumption_Park_in_Windsor,_Ontario has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Josh (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Burbot (Batchawana B) 3.JPG

File:Burbot (Batchawana B) 3.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!

P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Robert-Cliche_Regional_County_Municipality

Robert-Cliche Regional County Municipality has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Wolfy13399 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:News-Advertiser Building

Hello Fungus Guy, since you created the category, just wanted to inform you I added all the images from the same user in that category. Since the user is blocked, I leave it up to you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Location?

Hi Fungus Guy - I've added an estimated location to your photo File:Sweet-fern (Huron Shores).JPG, to give the Geogroup map for this species more coverage. Could you check and refine it as necessary, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Gore Street mural 1.JPG

File:Gore Street mural 1.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) 10:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)