User talk:MPF/archive4

Toronto Towers

Hello. First, I had no intention of giving offence, and I apologize if I did. I do believe, however, that I am entitled to point out that a template is in my opinion being used incorrectly, without another user taking it as a personal insult or treating it as a disparaging remark. If you didn't understand my initial edit summary, you could have inquired rather than reverting. Having said that, my second edit summary could have (and should have) been more detailed, and for that I am sorry. If I had known I was causing you grief, I would have done it differently. Your point is well taken.

(I will respond to your substantive comments shortly. I began to draft this response this morning (and finished the above para), but it's been a busy day, and I keep getting pulled away. I am going to post part now, however, because I don't want to go any longer without acknowledging your note. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring it). Will get back to you soon.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again. Sorry for never fully responding to this. I guess I got caught up with other things, lost track of the discussion, and forgot to get back to this.

I don't disagree that this is a low resolution image. But the intent of that template isn't to simply tag low quality images, but rather to give editors a heads-up that we could use better quality images of the article subject. If this image was one of the few that we had on the Commons of the CN Tower, gulls or street lights, and we wanted to encourage the uploading of more and better quality images, then I'd agree that the template was warranted. But, unless I am mistaken, we have plenty of images of the article subjects. Moreover, this image is merely a semi-interesting, quirky juxtaposition of the gull, the street light and the tower -- it isn't necessarily something that would be easy (or even necessary) for someone to go out and get a better image of the same thing. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Sorry for taking four (!!) months to share them with you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on

Hi MPF, I see you deleted some of the categories user:MGA73 created. These categories will fill up when Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph starts so could you please not do that? Thank you! Multichill (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Multichill - presume you mean those empty 'Avenues in ....' categories? If you're sure they'll fill, they can easily be re-made, but as they'd been lying empty for the best part of 2 months they didn't serve any useful purpose as of when I found them. I left the one for Avenues in UK (and added some files to it) even though that was also empty before today. - MPF (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi MPF, please don't hop talk page. I use my watchlist. We have several thousand empty categories and 250.000 images waiting to be uploaded, but I have to wait until the new storage is properly working. I have been waiting for way too long so also having our work being undone adds to the frustration. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK! Want them restored? - MPF (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Handbook of the Birds of the World

Hello my friend,
If you want to provide a list of taxa out of Handbook of the Birds of the World (like here), you can now use {{Genera}}, {{Species}}... with the param source=hbw.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Gagea unidentified 10 Larinae.JPG

Thanks for the identification !

Sincerely, --Gagea (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is it possible to know if it's an adult, and wich sex is it ? If so, I would add the information in the description. Thanks in advance !

--Gagea (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Quite an easy one as there is only one species of large black-backed gull in South America. It is an adult; no way of telling the sex though. - MPF (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Palm tree Las Terrenas.JPG

Thanks for the identification! --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for idnetify and categorise my gull's photos :). Yarl ✉ 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fringillidae

Hello MPF,
Where did you find the repartition of the Category:Fringillidae genera into the 3 subfamilies Carduelinae, Drepanidinae, Fringillinae?
en:Finch even speaks of 4 subfamilies.
We have the same problem with other families for which IOC totally ignore the subfamilies.
Liné1 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't remember offhand, I'll have to look into it. But the en:Finch article seems to be well referenced, so I'd not object to that being followed. - MPF (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MPF. You have new messages at MGA73's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

category:Trees

Hi MPF, I saw your note at Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph. I'm doing category:Trees first so most of the Geograph images should be out of that category soon :-) Multichill (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Super, thanks! I got the easy-to-identify ones done to species categories. Know if there's any possibility of getting hi-res originals of any of them from the photographers? There's some potentially very useful photos in there, if only they were 3 megabytes, rather than ~100 kb. - MPF (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Small correction

Thanks You for the information. And tiny correction: the southern area of Ukraine is called Crimea, not Krym.
With best regards, George
--George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chroicocephalus ridibundus

Thank you for identification - Chroicocephalus ridibundus Pe-Jo (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An Aleppo Pine cone

Thanks for your help! I can now add specimen's identification to Conifer cone - you actually saved this photo from menacing deletion by impatient Wikipedians.... איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Yamaha Oak Drumset 1.jpg

On last moment, you changed category of File:Yamaha Oak Drumset 1.jpg, etc. from Category:Oak wood to Category:Wood of Quercus, but it is seemed to be unreasonable change.

In the musical instruments community, "Oak" or "Oak wood" is well known name for material of musical instruments, and "Quercus" is not popular. Your change may cause huge troubles for musical instruments users. Such trouble are already occur in Bird community, where all bird are named in scientific name, thus ordinarily people can't identify categories of well known birds.

Please revert your changes. best regards, --Shoulder-synth (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think that Wikimedia Commons racks concept of multiple name space. One object has multiple name in different name space, such as "Scientific name" space, "Musical instrument material name" space, etc. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was merging two categories covering the same topic; the category merged to was much older, which is the normal proceedure for merging categories. I left a redirect in place so it is easy to find the correct category. Also please remember, that while 'oak' is more familiar to English speakers, 'Quercus' is universal and much more familiar than 'oak' to speakers of other languages - MPF (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. But, "Oak" is standard name in musical instruments community... Can I create multiple name space in manner of Commons Wikipedia ?

If it is possible, I'll create Category:Musical instrument wood name, Category:Birds of Japan in Japanese, and subcategories of these may be mapped into more standard categories using sub-categorization or redirect mechanism... --Shoulder-synth (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not a good idea - all images of a particular topic should stay together. If you want to, you can add a request for the category to be renamed here (under the header #Category move requests), but I doubt it will get a lot of support. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oak as wood species is much more universally known than Quercus. A solution to avoid ideological problems is making an in between category, such as "Oak based instruments", "Oak based objects" ... --Foroa (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! for your kindly comment. I'll try to create adaptive category based on your idea. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To make a [Category:Oak based instruments] (or perhaps better [Category:Oak wood instruments]?) which is then a subcategory of [Category:Wood of Quercus]? That sounds a reasonable compromise. - MPF (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you ! --Shoulder-synth (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Inga (Fabaceae)

Please note that the move from Category:Inga (Fabaceae) to Category:Inga is controversial as Inga is used in too many other context. Please issue a move request or vdf for controversial moves. --Foroa (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it is controversial at all. I didn't "move" it anyway, I merged it into an existing Category:Inga which someone else had created and categorised several Inga images and taxa into. For other contexts, these are better sorted by using a hatnote "For the Inga in xxxxx, see Category:Inga, xxxx"; that is far preferable to trying to leave the category deleted when someone will soon come along and create it again. Please also note that having taxa categories at anything other than the taxon name alone (such as the Category:Inga (Fabaceae) example) creates major problems for taxonavigation boxes; they should only be used as a very last resort (e.g. where the same name is used for an animal taxon and a plant taxon). - MPF (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Some precisions.

• you did the move which I reverted.
• It is controversial as several other contested moves you did to get rid of the disambiguation term, such as Category:Sylvia for which you have no support.
• The category lives already 31 months as Category:Inga (genus) and later as Category:Inga (Fabaceae) without taxonavigation problems
• When looking into Category:Inga history and and its logs, it is clear that it was used for a place in Congo till recently, and that disambiguation is clearly needed
• You know that hatnotes don't work for bots and most professional categorisers that hardly check the outcome of a categorisation: if the category is blue or accepted by HotCat, they don't look back. --Foroa (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank

hierfür! Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gull identification

You have my sincere thanks for identifying the birds in these three pictures. Regards, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds id

Hi, I found the birds feeding on ticks off the impala. Any ideas? --Muhammad (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! - MPF (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you --Muhammad (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Larus argentatus distribution map.png

Hi, MPF. You have replaced a world distribution map of Larus argentatus sensu lato by a european distribution map of Larus argentatus sensu stricto. But 1°) I need the previous one for the article fr:Goéland argenté 2°) You have chosen a wrong representation (the good one is File:European Larus Argentatus distribution map.svg). Is it possible to put the previous map back ? Thanks ! VonTasha (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to put the old one back, but if doing so, it is important to clarify that it is not a map of Larus argentatus, but a composite map of several species, and with a new file name - MPF (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK for me ! But how is it possible to do that ? VonTasha (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not entirely sure what you're meaning there "It's OK for me" - MPF (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean that it's OK to put the old map back (but I don't know how) and clarify the description. For the "new file name", I fail to see how to do that too... VonTasha (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK! I'll put the old one back and change the caption - MPF (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! The clarification is done too VonTasha (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the wording slightly and added extra categories for the other species. I'll re-name the file a bit later - MPF (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, MPF. I know that in the past, this species grouped a lot of populations together, but when I said sensu lato, I meant sensu lato in 2010. I'm trying to formulate the current situation, not the 1990 one (or the 1970 one ). I don't know if there is a better way to formulate it, because you know that the sensu stricto acceptance is not validated by everybody, and I think that the expression "grouping L.argentatus, L.vegae and L.smithonianus" is not at all neutral : it means "the first acceptance is better than the second". If you see a better way to formulate this idea, you're welcome !. VonTasha (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) PS : sorry for my bad level of english

Taxa templates

Hi Liné - when using taxa templates {{taxa|...}}, please always include spaces, like this: {{taxa |Taxon1 |Taxon2 |Taxon3 |Taxon4 }} or this: {{taxa| Taxon1| Taxon2| Taxon3| Taxon4 }}, NOT {{taxa|Taxon1|Taxon2|Taxon3|Taxon4}}, as the lack of spaces in the last creates severe formatting problems in the edit boxes (particularly where there are numerous included taxa). Also, please remember (as pointed out several times above!), ITIS is a poor reference source, and we shouldn't be using it, please don't add links to it. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me an exemple of buggy {{taxa|rank|Taxon1|Taxon2|Taxon3|Taxon4}}? This problem has to be solved.

Your solution of spaces is only a workarround that, like many workarrounds, should be avoided

(the fact that some people will put spaces at the end and other at the beginning show the problem: why not 2 spaces before and 3 after).

Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Windthrow category

Category:Windthrow should only have uprooted trees in forests (as it is to do with the uprooting of trees in an area/row or sometimes an isolated tree(s) in a forest) rather then in urban areas as the term Windthrow is only used in forests the same applies to Windsnap. See [1],[2],[3] Bidgee (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd differ there, the term Windthrow is also used in urban tree care at least in Britain (maybe because many of our urban tree people took forestry degrees). But if you'd prefer to have the category renamed I've no major objection; when I merged Category:Uprooted trees into Category:Windthrow, I did it that way round on the basis of the latter being the page with the longer history (July 2008 vs Dec 2009) and shorter title. - MPF (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Pinusquadrifolia1.jpg

Hi, in case you're interested, I took another mediocre pic of a garden specimen of Pinus quadrifolia. Edit as needed! Cheers, Stickpen (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A._Talk 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

JPEG

Hi MPF, can you tell me why you removed category:JPEG? The way I understand category:JPEG, category:GIF, category:PNG, category:Ogg files, they are for files in the correspondig formats.

Commons has over five million files, the vast majority of which are jpeg files; I don't see category:JPEG on any of the rest, which makes it a decidedly useless category serving no valid purpose. But if you can make a substantial case for including it, go ahead and put it back in (and add it to the other five million, too!). - MPF (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"make a substantial case for including": Don't have to. Category exists, fits, and is obviously a basic part of our category structure. Obviously terribly neglected, also. Is there any reason to remove the category from any file? "useless" is not listed in COM:DP as a reason to delete categories.

"add it to the other five million": Ok, give me some time, though. Paradoctor (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Abies "formating"

Hi MPF,

Im curious as to why you have formatted the Abies species categories to remove all taxonav. above family? it does not conform to any other taxa categories and forces extra clicks when someone wants to move above Pinaceae from one of the species cats.--Kevmin (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Largely accidental, as I'd copied a template across from Pinus, where the top rank was family; the reason I did Abies was to add species authors and remove the incorrect 'Cronquist' cite (as Cronquist only applies to Angiosperms). I did leave Pinophyta in after noticing the difference in the later species, but Pinopsida (a redirect) is superfluous and Pinales pretty much so too. Maybe the Pinophyta bit should be added to all the Pinus cats and pages too . . . another 190-ish edits to be done! - MPF (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Pseudotsuga glauca cones.jpg

Can you upload full resolution version of this file? Crusier (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The pic was done on a scanner, so it is the full resolution (I didn't have a digital camera back then ;-) but I can dig out the cones again and take a new photo of them - MPF (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi MPF,

I now realize you may be an expert in Botanics or, at least, someone who knows much more than me. It is very difficult to identify the wild plants accurately and I really don't have such hability (...) I do what I can, using some good books and the images in Commons, but I feel helpless quite often. The main problem is that there are many different species (and varieties) in the Mediterranean area and books cannot illustrate them all. Where can I find some competent help? Is there a group here in Commons dealing with identification? Here is an example of a flower that I shot yesterday and cannot identify. Any kind of Orchidaceae? Greetings, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alvesgaspar - I'll do what I can, though I'm better on trees, conifers in particular, than on small plants. This one is a species of Trifolium, very similar to Trifolium rubens though not quite right for it (i.e., probably a closely related species). I guess the most important point is always to add the location to the file (and if discernible, whether the plant is growing wild, or is planted), that can be a big help in identification. If you can put a list of your unidentified photos somewhere (your user page, or a sub-page from it), or alternatively make a category for them and put it as a subcategory of Category:Unidentified plants by location, I'll take a look through them. Also add a link to them on the Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life page. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just did a bit of checking myself; it's Trifolium angustifolium - MPF (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. I would never conclude this is a Clover (though it is in the book with an illustration and everything...)! I only photograph wild flowers but will be careful in georeferencing the photos. Now, wait for the flood. ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I have created a gallery with some unidentified species in here. Take a look at the type of place where I'm now taking most of the shots: File:Flowers April 2010-1a.jpg. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird plants

Hi MPF, do you know which plants are visible on the field behind the blue thingy? ;-) Maybe some kind of Allium? Hmm, dunno … --:bdk: 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know. The lack of any location info doesn't help, unfortunately (no idea whether temperate, or tropical, or what). - MPF (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please behave

Please MPF, could you use correct manners ?
You are not supposed to touch my private doc (1 & {http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lin%C3%A91/mydoc&curid=1441255&diff=37999455&oldid=37895406 2].
If you want to talk, please use my discussion page.
Liné1 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I entered an entry in Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Cronquist_in_Commons to solve the ITIS problem. Liné1 (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I wasn't aware that pages like that were private. On one or two other occasions with such edits, I got thanks from the user for making corrections before they went 'live' with subpages. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

MPF, I got permission to take a number of photographs of Blume's Flora Javae, a very rare work. When I took the photographs, I was assisted half a day by a staff member of Groningen University Library. They appreciate it very much if I add a statement to the effect of "Courtesy of Groningen University Library staff" to the pictures I upload to Wikimedia Commons, and it will help me a great deal if I want to get permission for taking pictures of other works in the department valuable books in the future. In the end, Wikimedia Commons will also profit from it. Can you at least explain why you deleted the courtesy notes in all my files from Flora Java? And don't you think it would have been a good idea to inform me of your wish to delete the notes and the reason why, and to try to reach some kind of understanding, instead of just boldly deleting them? - Wikiklaas (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry, I was too quick. You only replaced the notes to the English comments. But when I added them in the upload form in "additional comments", they were placed where they ended up: under the license tag. I'm very curious why you placed them somewhere else. - Wikiklaas (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arizona Trees

Hi MPF,

I am going back to Mexico today, but I will be coming up regularly for the next 3 months or so, and I´ll be glad to take those pictures. Yesterday I did photograph some within the landscape, and saw some beautiful junipers, but the lighting was no good. Let me see what I can rescue and will upload them. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Baker Beach full res

Please don't take it personally, I'm a bit tired of commenting on this issue and I refuse to make this FPC nomination a place for soap boxing. If you genuinely have no idea why I uploaded in this particular order: a couple of reviewers seem unable to take image size into account when reviewing. It sucks that I now have to defend myself here. I'm not the bad guy. I supply full size versions (recent ones going up to 260MP ) for all my pictures at licenses that allow simple reuse, and I have zero monetary interests or hidden agendas. Go ask some of the guys that upload downsampled to barely minimum size and use GFDL-12-only licensing. It drives me fairly mad that thos downsampled demoversions harvest supports for their so called sharpness whereas every hint of CA a normal un-oversharpend focus in my 12MP full size pictures gets picked on and used as an oppose reason. It seems like a cruel joke that I'm now getting a hard time for still making my full size version available, just under a different link, while regulars who upload only downsampled versions are not bothered at all. --Dschwen (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I wasn't aware of any of the background to this; sorry to hear about it - MPF (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Baldcyrpess

Hi MPF, It's been a while but I am pretty sure it was Lake Phelps in Pettygrew State Park NC 152.1.193.138 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC) No login, sorry Jcwf (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm from zh-wiki,I want to upload pictures about China Expressways's logo,like this.What Copyright tags could I use?Could I use cc-by-2.0 ?--Rocking Man (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

really thanks,have a nice day :)--Rocking Man (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

patroling

Hi MPF! If you revert some things, could you also mark the contibuter as patrolled? that would be great!! thx. Amada44 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

see you again

Hi,nice to see you again,I just up load the pictureFile:China Expressway G98.svg,however it didn't show up,WHY????--Rocking Man (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DAMN!! I think I find out the problem,would you please delete it?--Rocking Man (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man,you rock!--Rocking Man (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Poplars?

Hi MPF!
What is visual difference between poplars Populus × canadensis and Populus nigra?
It was very old and very thick tree (was cut in this spring). The black poplar is typical plant for the central Ukraine, i don't expect to see here hybrids planted more half a century ago.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi George - they are distinguished by leaf size and shape. P. nigra has smaller leaves, with a more rhomboidal shape (angle at base of leaf around 100-150°) and only very small teeth on the margins; examples here, here, here, here, here. Populus × canadensis has larger leaves, with a more deltoid shape (angle at base of leaf around 140-190°) and larger teeth on the margins (examples here, here, here, here, here), characters which it inherits from its P. deltoides parent (example here). Unfortunately, size of the tree is not a very useful character, as P. × canadensis is so fast-growing that even quite young trees get very thick. I would also strongly suspect P. × canadensis will have been cultivated for far longer than 50 years in Ukraine (the hybrid was first made in France early in the 1700s, and hybrid trees were widespread in cultivation by 1850 onward). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank You! I agree with your identification now.

And VI promotion must be removed or fixed (renominated?) now? --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I don't know about the VI system, what needs to be changed there. Maybe ask on the VI discussion page (I assume there is one, I haven't looked!) - MPF (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FPC careless reviews

Hi MPF,

You may be interested in participating in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying File:Commonsnipe67.jpg - again!

Hi,

I recently found this image with the wrong public-domain tag. This led me to find the original image and link to it, so I could add the proper tag. In the process, I found two copies of the image, both on the US Fish & Wildlife Service's site, with contradictory identifications. I notice that you were the one who changed the identification back in 2008 from Common Snipe to Wilson's Snipe. Unfortunately, the Common Snipe source looks just slightly more reliable to me than the other source.

So would you mind re-confirming that your identification is not (only) based on that other source I found?

Thanks!

Ken g6 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ken - definitely Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata. It is a matter of recent taxonomic revision - in the past, Wilson's Snipe used to be considered just a subspecies of Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago (as the subspecies Gallinago gallinago delicata). Since the photo was taken in North America, it can't be what is now treated as Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago sensu stricto, formerly subspecies Gallinago gallinago gallinago), as that is restricted to the Old World. The second ref is just using out-of-date terminology. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Linebreaks

Hi MPF, dont know what happened here, maybe a bug using an external editing software? --Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your vote

Hi MPF, thanks for the comment on my image. I added the borders between frames: File:Leaf Scorpionfish in Kona.jpg. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Magnolia identities

Hi MPF, thanks for your compliment on my talk page and thanks for taking notice. As I don't know whether you check my talk page, I thought I'd better drop a note here. There are many more Magnolia pictures in the "unidentified" category that can easily be placed better than there, and I will continue to do that. I'm less concerned with the file names since I guess users will find the files they are looking for if they are placed in the right category. But I certainly wouldn't mind if you do that bit of the job as I was not granted the right to change filenames when I asked for it. Cheers. - Wikiklaas (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, MPF, I just corrected the situation round Magnolia dianica / Magnolia laevifolia / Michelia yunnanensis and saw you were the one that made Michelia laevifolia the redundant category. I thought I'd better explain this to you then. The nomenclatural history of Michelia laevifolia is quite complicated but the name was published validly by Law & Wu in 1988 (Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 8(3): 72-73, fig. 2). The name Magnolia dianica was proposed by Sima & Figlar in 2001 (Yunnan Forest. Sci. Technol. 2: 30) as a nom. nov. for Michelia yunnanensis Franch. ex Finet & Gagnep. upon transfer to Magnolia, since the epithet yunnanensis was not available because of Magnolia yunnanensis (Hu) Noot. 1985 (= Parakmeria yunnanensis Hu). If Michelia laevifolia and Michelia yunnanensis are considered conspecific (as they are by the vast majority of botanists, including Nooteboom), then the oldest available name has to be used for the taxon (In Michelia this is yunnanensis). In Magnolia, the epithet yunnanensis is not available as already stated and also the epithet dandyi (Michelia dandyi Hu, 1937, considered a synonym for M. yunnanensis Finet & Gagnep. by Chen & Nooteboom, 1993) was unavailable, being already taken by Magnolia dandyi Gagnep. 1939. The epithet of the taxonomic synonym laevifolia however was available and dated from 1988, much earlier than dianica which was only published in 2001. I don't know why this has not yet been corrected on the website of the Magnolia Society, where it is Dick Figlar himself who keeps the nomenclature up-to-date, but in this case we must rely on published scientific articles and flora's, like Flora of China (2008): 86-87, where the three names I started with are treated as synonyms, and thus Magnolia dianica has to be rejected in favour of Magnolia laevifolia. - Wikiklaas (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MPF, nice to talk to you again. I sort of finished my round on Magnolia pictures and moved the ones that were clearly miscategorized. When I was not sure, I left them where they were. I guess there still will be some Magnolia × soulangeana pictures amongst the liliiflora's and an occasional salicifolia in category kobus or vice versa. The three campbellii pics from Parc floral in Paris might turn out to be hybrids but for the moment I'm quite comfortable to have them in category campbellii. At least they look very much like true campbellii flowers and are better placed here than in category "acuminata" or in "cultivars" or "unidentified". Meanwhile I came upon a dozen or so of files that had misleading filenames. Some tripetala's that were in fact obovata; some sieboldii's that represented × loebneri Leonard Messel. An occasional Mulan being in fact Saucer. I marked them all with a template for renaming. It turned out to be too cumbersome to keep a record of the files. I used the copy and paste function of my keyboard for copying and pasting the Information template and typing names in full just to be able to send them to you for renaming was too much of a burden. I requested the right for renaming files (filemover) a couple of days ago but was denied it on the basis of "not enough experience". When I asked what kind of experience the moderator was looking for it stayed painfully quiet at the other end of the line, so I still have no idea in what field I should improve myself before applying again and how many edits I will have to do or how many files I will have to upload or what kind of tricks I would have to practice before I qualify. Can you shed some light on that for me please? It would have been really handy if I could have renamed files myself in the last couple of days. By the way: I "watch" this page so you can reply here. - Wikiklaas (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check them out. Sorry, not sure on the requirements for adminship offhand, I didn't become one until I had several thousand edits, probably rather more than actually needed. - MPF (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want te be an admin. The only thing I asked for was the right to rename files, which, as I pointed out, would have made my work on cleaning up the mess in the Magnolia pictures much more effective. By the way: Some Leyo advised me to apply for autopatrol rights as an alternative. I read the autopatrol rights page and I don't see any benefits for me if I would have them. Or am I wrong? - Wikiklaas (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother to answer this one: I just discovered that as of 24 March 2010 I was granted the autopatrol right, without me asking for it or anyone else thinking of informing me of the fact. So Leyo's advise too was a bit out of the order. The only thing that leaves me puzzled is: how will I ever get experience with the filemover rights if I won't be granted those rights. In real life I am a diving instructor (and speedskating instructor too) and I know the only way of learning things is to practice them. - Wikiklaas (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Quercus ident help

I was wondering if you could ident what species this tree (leaves and acorn) is? I had asked this at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and User:Melburnian thought that you would be the best person to ask. Bidgee (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a Holm Oak Quercus ilex, both my ident and confirmed by a top oak expert I know in France. I'll tag the photos. - MPF (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the ident! The park where I photographed the tree has at least three of them, none are marked with the ident nor the year or circa years when it was planted (likely late 1800s to 1940s). Bidgee (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

{{FishBase species}}

Hello my friend,
If you have time, could you look at my modification request on Template talk:FishBase species ?
Looks like we temporarely lost our User:Rocket000.
Thanks in advance, cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Horned melons

There has been several discussions about horned melons, [4] and species with commons names or that are used in the kitchen or as fruit. Please issue a move request before moving such categories. --Foroa (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop re-creating all these improper IP-number creations. The WikiProject Tree of Life has very long accepted that species pages should use the scientific name. Many of the pages the IP number created are incorrectly formed, too, or use POV-pushing names inappropriate in an international context - MPF (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gallery names can be in any language, so you don't have the right to delete galleries by redirecting them . Moreover, many species have common names for their category:fruit, such as apples, bananas, pears, cherry, .... Please use proper merge procedures before merging categories with common names into the species names. --Foroa (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"many species have common names for their fruit" - that only applies to a very few major crop species with very large numbers of files. It doesn't apply to minor species with just a handful (or even just one) photo. - MPF (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That applies for many more crops than you might imagine because in that aspect, commons is in only at the beginning. Last months we have seen hundreds of exotic fruit image uploads, especially all the mango varieties. Anyway, there is a consensus not to delete galleries that have several images. So please use the proper procedures. --Foroa (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes more sense to create these as and when they are needed, not before so. And anyway, most of those IP-created galleries were pure duplicates of existing galleries, and were not of food crop species at all. You are making it more and more difficult to do any editing here at all, if every single edit has to be approved by a week's talk page discussion before it is permitted. Commons will grind to a complete halt, and I for one, will give up and leave if this continues. - MPF (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of anonymous that do, from time to time, substantial efforts to provide media and prepare for "fruit" categories (several of them quite original ones, but several got already deleted). In the end, almost all fruit/vegetable/legumes categories will contain recipes, dishes (cakes, drinks, ...), cats for harvest, production, storage, transport and packaging, their use in art and decoration etc.. So why demotivating those people by deleting all the time their contributions by stating that it is not enough for a separate gallery. This is the way all wikipedias started and why we have some rules about deleting galleries. Helping them will be much more productive and enjoyable than trying to force everything in the taxonomy straitjacket till it explodes. --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy isn't a straitjacket, it is an essential tool for maintining order and 'findability', and avoiding pointless duplication. When an anon creates a new gallery and category identical to an existing one but titled with a very obscure local variant name as a parallel universe of galleries and categories, how is that helpful? While perhaps not vandalism within the strict sense, it is getting borderline close to it, and certainly isn't helping Commons. Also, what "substantial efforts to provide media" has any anon made? Anons can't upload media, they need a user page to do so. And as for contacting the anon, how? From the editing behaviour, all the IP numbers are clearly the work of a single contributor, who has shown no evidence of any willingness to respond to points made by others on the respective talk pages. Highly unlikely that the contributor will ever even see the notes, as the next time s/he edits it will be with another new IP number and s/he won't get the 'New messages' prompt. - MPF (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chestnutbanded Plover blue cast

...appreciate your processing of the image. It looks much more natural. Prashanthns (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Thomas_Rowlandson_-_Vaux-Hall_-_Dr._Johnson,_Oliver_Goldsmith,_Mary_Robinson,_et_al.jpg

Moved, per request. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Flexopecten glaber ponticus

The Scallop Flexopecten glaber ponticus began to disappear quickly after invasion of Veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) in the Black sea in XX Century (was found after 1947). Rapana venosa is predator and eats other mollusc and crabs. Oysters became very rare, mussels too have suffered.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop deleting galleries for which there is no consensus

Please stop deleting galleries for which there is no consensus --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus for merging - MPF (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Category talk:Horned melons No consensus whatsoever. It is not because you start another discussion elsewhere that you gain consensus. --Foroa (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dracæna Draco rename

Regarding your recent reneaming of File:Dracæna Draco, Nordisk familjebok.png to File:Dracaena draco, Nordisk familjebok.png. The original name wasn't a typo but the spelling as it was given in the original source [5]. As such I believe it's the best filname (and definitly the correct file description/caption) for the image. Obviously it would still be categorised as Dracaena draco and link to Dracaena draco but it's important to maintain the original info as well. /Lokal_Profil 10:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think the file should retain its Nordisk familjebok filename, OK, but I'd say the description should be more on the lines of "''[[Dracaena draco]]'' [Nordisk familjebok spelling Dracæna Draco] ..." - MPF (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Filename restored and image description updated =) /Lokal_Profil 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Erle im Tümpel 3701.JPG

Hello MPF, I thank You for identification. Greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

File:2010-05-25-Video-Meise-2.ogg

Hello MPF, are You very sure that the bird is a "Blue tit" (Cyanistes caeruleus) and not a "Great tit" (parus major)? Then I have to change the trailer. Regards, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definite. The Blue Tit head pattern is clear when it sticks its head out of the box each time just before leaving, and also when it perches in the tree on flying in. - MPF (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the trailer and the description of related images. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of plants by day taken

JFYI, I'll stop adding plant images to these cats only after they are nominated for deletion and deleted. Until that I'll keep adding them, regardless of whether you'll keep deleting these cats from image pages or not. Cmapm (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What use are they? If you really want files categorised by date, would it not make far more sense to auto-encode the "|Date=" syntax in the information box into hidden date categories? That way, every file in the whole of Commons would be categorised automatically without having to edit each one. - MPF (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you've got them all wrongly formatted to fit with commons standards; they should be titled by day-month, not month-day - MPF (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, Cmapm. I looked for a relevant discussion on your talk or user page without success. MPF's suggestion to auto-encode the date may be helpful. Please see ru:ISO_8601 for the date format. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/07/Category:Images of plants taken on June 1 for a deletion request for these categories. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aubépine de Bouquetot

It is a Crataegus Oxyacantha - Best regards Gérard (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! PS C. oxyacantha is a synonym of Crataegus laevigata ;-) MPF (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Gardens in Sweden

Hi MPF, I saw you changed the category "Quercus" in File:Hartekamp cropped.jpg, introduced there by Foroa, into "Gardens in Sweden", on july 19. Now I must admit that the category "Quercus" was a very bad label to go with this file, as there is no Oak to be seen, only the name "American Oak" is mentioned in the description. But where did you find the information that Hartekamp is an estate or a garden in Sweden? As this is in fact the one hundred points question in today's quizz, I'll let you ponder for a while before I will change the category into what it really should read. - Wikiklaas (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! I guess it was the Linnaean association ;-) I've changed it to Gardens in the Netherlands. Thanks for spotting it! - MPF (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And that's the correct answer in today's quizz! (And as I spotted this was not clear from the descriptions that go with the file, I'm going to add the country to the location). - Wikiklaas (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tnx4: Classifying Unidentified Plants

For your efforts at Classifying Unidentified Plants...

mallard

And as an illustration of a male mallard, it is definitely to be categorized under "Anas platyrhynchos (male)" since there is no category more specific. Unless you want "Illustrations of Anas platyrhynchos (male)" to be created (I've nothing against it)? It would be categorized in the same place. --Eusebius (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[Category:Anas platyrhynchos (male)] was (until I dealt with it just now) grossly over-loaded (about 240 files, well over the recommended 200 maximum); several of the other Anas platyrhynchos subcategories were also getting over-full. The reason for this is the simple fact that people will go taking so ridiculously many pics of tame ducks, while ignoring other species less easily photographed. Mallards are the only duck (almost the only bird) with photos broken down into sex categories; other duck illustrations are not categorised by sex. I created new categories to contain selections of files that could be removed from these categories; this included separating all illustrations into a new category (similar to subcategorisation of several other heavily contributed species). As there's only about a dozen or so illustrations, that's not enough to need a sex breakdown of them. Maybe when there's getting close to 200 Mallard illustrations on Commons, then they can be subdivided by sex if desired - but it isn't needed now. - MPF (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that your diff is a loss of information in the categorization, and not based on a possibly stupid deleted category, but because you decided that the sex information was not necessary in the categorization of this file (among others) and should be removed (by opposition to "not added"). I stop here, because I tend to care less and less about Commons as a whole, and because I'm currently wasting my time with a duck. --Eusebius (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help

classifying enormous amount of plants, birds, mammals ..., great work!
Only this time exceptionally I think you might be wrong - this must be a swan goose, caught in the wild and now living in a bird park near Heidelberg. Please have a look at it again. Yours, --4028mdk09 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this one is definitely domesticated; note the knob on the bill, and the fat rear end, both characters developed in domestication and absent in wild birds (see e.g. en:Domestic goose). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I´ll beg your pardon, but I´m not completely convinced at the moment. Have a look here - I formerly thougt that was the same bird. Next week I will have a closer look to both of them - and take some more pictures. --4028mdk09 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Must admit, I'd call that one a domesticated bird too ;-) It has a pronounced (though not huge) basal knob on the bill; compare truly wild-type birds with a flat bill like this and these. It could perhaps be a cross-breed between a wild bird and a domesticated one, but in ornithological terms, that stays counted as a domesticated bird, so long as there is obvious domesticated influence. - MPF (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I´m convinced now. Thanks a lot! --4028mdk09 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:PTRS168 0617.png

Straighten is OK, but I had already increased the contrast... the original scan sucks. In the new version, the second contrast increase has obliterated too much detail; the image is not very useful now (the accompanying text discusses now-invisible details at length). Can you revert?

(Caveat emptor: the problem affects a lot of PTRS content, at least from volume 168. I've tried making them useable, but the scans are simply very pale and somewhat discolored. If you want to improve it - it may be possible - you'd better start from the original scans here <- LARGE FILE! Thanks!) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK! Undone - MPF (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing "habitat" from Starr file descriptions

Hi MPF, I noticed you cleaned up quite a few file description pages from that batch, but don't rename the files themselves. The filename keeps referring to a plant that generally isn't pictured.

IMHO, the use of "habitat" or "habit" seems to be an easy way to identify images that generally need renaming (and cleaning up file description pages). There is some discussion at Commons:Bots/Work_requests#User:BotMultichillT_cleanup_.28Latin_names_from_Starr_batch_upload.29 to batch rename these files in one way or the other. Maybe you want to give us your thought on this. The main albatross sample is mentioned has already been renamed.

In general, I think it might be preferable to either rename the files first or only remove "habitat" (and the rest of the description) if the file is also renamed. --  Docu  at 07:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

True, I've often removed the mention of the non-existent plant from the file description (easy!) without changing the file name (at first at least, near-impossible - a lot of these edits were done before it became possible to rename files). I'd be dubious about using "habitat" or "habit" as a good search method though, quite often files with this in do show the filename species (e.g. File:Starr 041113-0632 Araucaria columnaris.jpg, File:Starr 050818-3970 Pinus radiata.jpg); unfortunately, I doubt there's any way other than a file-by-file inspection. What I have done though with nearly all the files without the named plant that I've edited, is put them in one of these categories, so any Starr file in these cats would be worth renaming: Category:Aerial photographs of Hawaii, Category:Airports in Hawaii, Category:Beaches of Hawaii, Category:Coasts of Hawaii, Category:Islands of Hawaii, Category:Landscapes of Hawaii, Category:People from Hawaii, Category:Trails in Hawaii, Category:Roads in Hawaii, Category:Restoration of habitats, Category:Transport in Hawaii. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think it does help. One could rename these first. I just remember that it should also be possible to find file description pages that used to include "habitat" in the database used to create the upload. I don't think it's a problem if a few files are renamed that do include the plant somehow.  Docu  at 15:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Mycteria cinerea-20031003.jpg

This photo was taken in Singapore Dougjj (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

These were wild, but shot at the Jurong Bird Park. JBP has these and several other large species in the park, they trim their flight feathers, band them, and keep them in open areas. There are areas in the park that attract wild birds of several species, including storks, herons, bitterns, egrets, Ibis and others. It's not uncommon to see a Brahminy Kite or White-bellied Sea Eagle looking for a meal. With ample protected habitat, a nearby lake, tributaries, mangrove swamp, etc. some have taken up residence and bred. Some of the storks are now probably cross bred as a result of their mingling with the captives and close habitation.

In this gallery are some recent shots of nests in 2 rookery areas, one with Painted Storks (might be cross breeds), and another shot yesterday with Black Crowned Night Herons and what I think are Little Egrets: http://www.pbase.com/dougj/non_passeriformes&page=all Dougjj (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Tsuga heterophylla cones.JPG

I have only these photos: File:Tsuga caroliniana Rogów.jpg, File:Tsuga caroliniana foliage Rogów.JPG --Crusier (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This place is 120 km away from me. I'll be there in the autumn Crusier (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:02_days_old_.jpg

Hello,

you are an Administrator. If you're of the opinion the image File:02_days_old_.jpg is illegal, then you can delete it of course. And the other as well of course, thats no problem for me. I would not be a bad example for other Users. I think it is legal, but it is only my own opinion. --Romate (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I just wasn't sure what the legal situation is in Germany. It would be illegal in some, but not many, countries; I am happy to accept it is not a problem in Germany. - MPF (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion without explication

Hi, why these 3 categories were delted and no explication came? Tree canopies in the Czech Republic | Tree canopies of Pinus sylvestris | Viscum album on Pinus Sylvestris --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Over-categorisation - creating several new categories just to accomodate one file, which is better placed (easier to find) in existing categories - MPF (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, once the mother category is full of images, why not to devide it? Well we are a community project. I place there one file, you place there another 3 files. After 3 month I place there another 4 files. That is how Commons works.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ID's

Thanks for ID some of my pics. If you could ID anymore in Category:Safari Niagara, Ontario unknown or Category:Butterfly Conservatory butterflies unidentified, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually took a look when I did the others, but couldn't get any of them - MPF (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

2b Biodiversity Photo

Hello DAve Menke,

My name is Rita Neves.

I work in Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Portugal.

Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure. We found your photos on Wikimedia Commons and liked specially one of them very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photos, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone.

The photos we would like to use are the following:

Loxia_curvirostra

1 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loxia_curvirostra1.jpg

2 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loxia_curvirostra2.jpg

The brochure will have four brackets. - Broochura a pocket to take the route - A brochure to present the day of inauguration

- Schedules for species identification
- Panels that will be fixed in the Land

As i said the Free Access will be everything :)

If you are the author and provide us that photo, we will refer your name in the bibliografy and we need to know what´s the name you want on the bibliography? Dave Menke? If it´s possible please respond to rita.neves@cm-lisboa.pt Thank you very much. Our best regards

These two images are in the public domain (from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service), you can use them freely in any way you like, with no restrictions. - MPF (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this. :) It's really appreciated: I didn't have a clue what kind of bird it was, so I just randomly guessed and got it wrong. Is it possible to rename the image as well? Cordially, Clementina talk 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'll take another look to see if I can work out which species of egret. When done, I'll re-name the file too. - MPF (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so the bird was an Ardea modesta? Interesting. :) Thanks once again, Clementina talk 08:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tree

for your indentification of this tree.

Re: "Abies × cephaloniana"

It's hybrid between Abies cephalonica and Abies nordmanniana. All information I found on the placard in Rogów Arboretum (File:Abies x cephaloniana Rogów placard.JPG). Sorry for the delay. I was at the seaside. --Crusier (talk)

Athene noctua Macedonia

Hello Ksenija Putilin,

My name is Rita Neves.

I work in Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Portugal. Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure. We found your photos on Wikimedia Commons and liked specially one of them very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photos, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone.

The photo we are considering to use are the following:

Athene noctua macedonia

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Athene_noctua_Macedonia.jpg 

The brochure will have four brackets. - Broochura a pocket to take the route - A brochure to present the day of inauguration - Schedules for species identification - Panels that will be fixed in the Land

As i said the Free Access will be everything :)

If you are the author and provide us that photo, we will refer your name in the bibliografy and we need to know what´s the name you want on the bibliography? Ksenija Putilin?

If it´s possible, i´m not a frequently flickr user actually, so please respond to ritasoraia2001@hotmail.com or rita.neves@cm-lisboa.pt or here.

Thank you very much. Our best regards

Rita Neves

Biodiversity Photo

Hello Karunakar Rayker.,

My name is Rita Neves.

I work in Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Portugal. Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure. We found your photos on Wikimedia Commons and liked specially one of them very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photos, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone.

The photo we are considering to use are the following:

Charadrius alexandrinus

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charadrius_alexandrinus_Karnataka.jpg  

The brochure will have four brackets. - Broochura a pocket to take the route - A brochure to present the day of inauguration - Schedules for species identification - Panels that will be fixed in the Land

As i said the Free Access will be everything :)

If you are the author and provide us that photo, we will refer your name in the bibliografy and we need to know what´s the name you want on the bibliography? Karunakar Rayker ?

If it´s possible, i´m not a frequently flickr user actually, so please respond to ritasoraia2001@hotmail.com or rita.neves@cm-lisboa.pt or here.

Thank you very much. Our best regards

Rita Neves

Dead tree ?

Hi, Why did you categorise this tree as a dead tree ? It didn't look dead at all when I took the photo. Mirgolth (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at it closely at full resolution, you can see there's no leaves on the twigs at all - the green that there is, is partly the tree behind showing through, and partly green algae on the older branches. Sad, but it's dead. - MPF (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK Mirgolth (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Grey-breasted Spurfowl

Thanks for the correction. Dger (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lamprotornis chloropterus

MPF, I added some photos to Category:Lamprotornis chloropterus but I am not sure with identification. Can you please check them? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you MPF for your help. I used commonist for uploading. I will certainly be able to change the cat order and the new line after description. I am not sure about new lines after location and license though.

About renaming. Feel free to do so, any time you feel necessary. I am not an expert, I check before uploading but there is a great chance of misidentifications occurring in my namings. I also avoid species names when I am in doubt during uploading. I use two keywords 'nevit' and the 'number' assigned by camera to find my files and do further editing s. Please keep those while remaining. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with Category:Marine life of Haiti

Dear MPF,

I notice that you have provided quite a bit of assistance in categorizing files. I ask for you help in solving a strange phenomenon. I uploaded 60+ images via Commonist app for Mac this last weekend and had the subject category in the field for categories in the general upload settings. I see that the category was registered for each of the new files (example file to the right) and in my view of the Category, I see 85 images total. Yet, when I ask others to view this Category page, they only see 17 images but they can see the other images that are not showing up on the category page individually on their respective File pages. What have I done wrong ? Any hints on how to fix this ? Thanks for your help. -Nick Nhobgood (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea! But I get all 85 show OK on Category:Marine life of Haiti, so maybe it was a cache / time-delay related problem? Ask the people getting just 17 to see if they get the rest by doing a hard reload of the category (press ctrl + F5 at the same time) - MPF (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I asked two friends again and they still only see 17 images on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Marine_life_of_Haiti. But if they go to either the "Printable version" or "Permanent link" links in the Toolbox section, they can see all 85 files. I think there is still something that is not right. Do you know what is the best email to contact regarding this kind of technical issue ? Thanks -Nick Nhobgood (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange! Best option is to post a query on the Village pump - MPF (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your California meme

...is getting really old sadly. If you don't want people to use jargon, unfortunately you might find it best to stay away from FPC, which is a community of tenured and knowledgeable contributors and photographers. I understand the sentiment you're trying to push, although I don't think badgering people on every FPC is the right way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that many visitors to the page won't know what 'CA' means. It isn't a sensible acronym as it has so many different possible answers. Please always spell it out. - MPF (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't. FPC is a community of photographers, so naturally some photography jargon will be used on occasion. It's like going to eswiki and asking people to speak English to accommodate some outsiders. You're welcome to correct my votes, but taking the time to spell out the whole thing is pointless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's very unwelcoming to new contributors to the page and just encourages cliquiness. Maybe many are from a "community of photographers", but that doesn't mean all are; if even just one contributor might not know, it should be spelt out. And by the way, I know perfectly well what chromatic aberration is, it is just the abbreviation I was unfamiliar with. And bear in mind, I am far from the only one who has had to ask what 'CA' meant. - MPF (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

...I doubt somebody is about to say "I don't know what CA means, I might as well storm off and leave." If I wanted every single person to understand my commentary, I'd have translated it into a hundred different languages. But I use both the language and the lingo I'm familiar and comfortable with. After all – I am a volunteer working here mostly on my conditions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Emperor Diocletian in FPC

Hi. Thanks for review. I tried to brighten Diocletian a bit. More should be risky for the details. Do you think it is better ? I do think so !! It is a real improvement IMO, due to your comment. Thanks again. --Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria pics request

It will be pleasure to me going to Pirin and taking some good photos. As far as I understand you want the images of these specimens from this season of the year because of the cones but I don't know if there will be opportunity for me to travel until the spring time. Anyway, I will take it into consideration.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia story

Please dont move sensible categories till there is an agreement and after the proper procedure. --Foroa (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ID please?

Hi MPF, could you please ID the seagull File:Seagull consuming crab.jpg? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, can't help with the crab though! - MPF (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you know plants too

File:Taraxacum officinale in Pacifica.JPG Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One of these I'm afraid! Not sure which, but not Taraxacum; maybe Hypochoeris, maybe Leontodon, maybe Picris, maybe Crepis, maybe Hieracium, maybe something else related. I'd say it can fairly safely be put in Category:Unidentified Cichorioideae (all the above genera are) but can't narrow it down more than that myself, unfortunately. - MPF (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, MPF! Here's the images I used to ID the plant. Some of those look exactly as mine does in my opinion. I also asked question here and they said it does look as Taraxacum officinale. How are you so sure it is not Taraxacum , if I may ask? If I am to take an image of the flower, will you be able to ID the plant? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Read Hardyplants' reply again "does not look like" . . ;-) I'm making the possibly risky assumption that the flowers to the right, and the bristly stem to the left, are the same plant; they are distinct from Taraxacum in flower structure (subtle!), and the bristly stem, respectively (Taraxacum is smooth-stemmed). Also, in general (though not invariable), Taraxacum is spring and early summer flowering; several of the genera I mentioned above are more strongly late summer and autumn flowering. Can you re-visit the plant and get some more pics from different angles to show the stems and leaves? Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are very helpful, and you know plants and birds! I will try to take more images of this plant. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact as smart as I am I did take a picture of the flowers. I thought I deleted it, but no, here it is. Just do not tell me please that even now the plant cannot be identified Thank you for your time!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Much better pic! Fairly sure I've got it: Picris echioides, a Mediterranean species naturalised / invasive in California (CalPhotos pics). Those bracts at the base of the seedheads are very distinctive. - MPF (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! With this other image, I actually did not try to take a good picture, so the quality is so-so. I took that image only because I believed it might be needed to ID the other one. The quality of the first image is much better I believe, and it is great you were able to ID it using my second image because this plant is growing up 30 miles from where I live. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was judging the two pics on diagnosable botanical details, rather than photographic composition. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Manuel Reimóndez Portela - A Estrada - Galiza.jpg

Sorry, your attitude does not seem to me correct--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

English question

Hi MPF, you were so helpful to respond my last questions, that I would like to ask you another one please. If somebody says to somebody "Playing dumb in these circumstances reveals intellectual dishonesty", will it be a personal attack? I understand all words in this statement, but because I came from an absolutely different culture, I am not sure, if it is, or it is not PA in English language. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strep throat

Thanks for improving that picture. --Jmh649 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:InterContinental_Warszawa.JPG

File:InterContinental_Warszawa.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!

grippenn 18:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Juglans californica-1.jpg, File:Juglans californica-2.jpg, File:Juglans californica-3.jpg

Could you please take a look to confirm identification. As of "Trees of Bay Area" there are no other walnut species except domesticated Eurasian walnut. Than you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

VI Promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Anthus petrosus (Rock Pipit).

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Regards. Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Red fruits

Hi,

I was going to create Category:Red fruits under Category:Red plant parts but noticed that it was deleted ‎by you with the explanation Incorrectly named: renamed. I was not able to find the renamed category. Regards... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

@Nevit: Have a look at Category:Red fruit. Regards, --4028mdk09 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Tnx 4028mdk09 ... Regards, --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 4028mdk09 for answering! The reason is that 'fruit' does not normally take an 's' in the plural - one fruit, several fruit. - MPF (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What?

I do not understand Talk:Actaea pachypoda. Can you not just fix the problem if any? --MGA73 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And some others like Talk:Aesculus hippocastanum. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

An ip-number with a history of vandalism created duplicate English-name pages for these species (but with spelling errors in the names). Yes I could and did fix them - I deleted them, in full accord with established Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life policy, merging them to the relevant scientific name. The problem was that User:Foroa immediately re-created them (I think because he does not approve of scientific names?), and demanded that I go through a formal merge / deletion policy proposal for each (and several other similar pages). So those talk page comments are the result of the {merge} proposals. It was a lot of nonsense to have to go through of course, but that is what he is like, and one of the reasons I stopped editing on Commons - MPF (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm... That sucks... Well sometimes it is easier to say "never mind" and move on. But the part I do not understand is that talk pages suggest category is moved to the exact same name as it is now. So I hope the problem is fixed now. --MGA73 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Hypsignathus_monstrosus.jpg

File:Hypsignathus_monstrosus.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!

Rbrausse (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Koppen World Map.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Koppen World Map.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Moros y Cristianos 06:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Panorama_Berliner_Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg

File:Panorama_Berliner_Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.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!

Saibo (Δ) 15:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Elf_owl.jpg

File:Elf_owl.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!

Icetigris (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear MPF/archive4. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2011 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you a×p_de^Hello! 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg

File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Grand-Duc (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:GINKGOBAUM.jpg

File:GINKGOBAUM.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!

Grand-Duc (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:LimberPineDead.JPG‎

Hi. You recently changed the name of this file, along with the identity of the dead tree. Why? It is a photo of a completely dead limber pine with a juniper behind it. The greenery you see is from another tree. Could you please undo this change and move? (Or give me a reason?) Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Pinus nigra

Hi,

Thank you for the correct identification! DenesFeri (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding File:The R Brain.jpg

Uploader has just now commented on the talk page, would be happy if it could be resolved :) _→AzaToth 00:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello,

thank you for correcting my mistakes with these pictures: Castanea_sativa_frucht3.jpg Castanea_sativa_frucht2.jpg Castanea_sativa_frucht3.jpg

--Blackerking (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Really cool!

... to be an admin : you don't like something, you just delete it: (Deletion log); 15:26 . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "Category:Celtis australis (leaves)" (Empty category: superfluous) (Deletion log); 15:25 . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "Category:Celtis australis (spontaneous)" (Empty category: superfluous) (Deletion log); 14:59 . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "Category:Celtis australis (whole)" (Empty category: superfluous) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis trunkandLeaves 2009November01 DehesaBoyaldePuertollano.jpg‎; 14:57 . . (-86) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis 2.jpg‎; 14:57 . . (-48) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis 1.jpg‎; 14:56 . . (-48) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Adi çitlenbik-1.JPG‎; 14:56 . . (-49) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Adi çitlembik-yaprak.JPG‎; 14:55 . . (-8) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Ulmaceae - Celtis Australis L..JPG‎; 14:53 . . (-50) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Toulouse - Avenue de Lardenne - 20110821 (2).jpg‎; 14:51 . . (-55) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Lledoner (Celtis australis) de Can Pujol.jpg‎; 14:43 . . (-91) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis Losar 20071111.jpg‎; 14:42 . . (-116) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis Losar 20071109 b.jpg‎; 14:42 . . (-86) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis 3.jpg‎; 14:41 . . (-53) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis 20091016.jpg‎; 14:40 . . (-121) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (Deletion log); 14:38 . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "Category:Celtis australis (fruits)" (Empty category: wrongly titled (grammar error)) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis183322.JPG‎; 14:37 . . (-48) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis.jpg‎; 14:37 . . (-130) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis fruits.jpg‎; 14:36 . . (-72) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) (diff | hist) . . m File:Celtis australis branch.jpg‎; 14:35 . . (-118) . . MPF (talk | contribs)‎ (cat) And please don't forget the rest of my superfluous creations like for instance:

• Category:Robinia pseudoacacia (blooming)‎
• Category:Robinia pseudoacacia (cultivated)‎
• Category:Robinia pseudoacacia (spontaneous)‎
• Category:Robinia pseudoacacia (trunk)‎
• Category:Robinia pseudoacacia (whole)‎

And several others I don't remember... You might also want to block my account altogether (don't be shy, remember, you're the boss!) to prevent further superfluous categorizations from me. - Olybrius (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

HNY

--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)