User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2013/5

File:Tofieldia pusilla flower upernavik 2007-07-11.jpg

Hi Slaunger - I was looking at this photo and saw that it had a deleted sister photo, which was deleted because the identification was disputed (sv:Diskussion:Björnbrodd). Two points arising; first, is the existing photo the same plant as the deleted photo? (I am fairly sure, yes); and second, photos are not normally deleted just for misidentification, they are just added to a subcategory of Category:Unidentified plants, to await identification by others. I concur with the doubts over its identity, as the leaves are too long and slender for Tofieldia pusilla, it looks to me to be something in the family Cyperaceae. So therefore, my proposal is (a) to recategorise File:Tofieldia pusilla flower upernavik 2007-07-11.jpg into Category:Unidentified Cyperaceae or perhaps Category:Unidentified Liliopsida, and (b) to restore the deleted photo (I can do this as an admin), and similarly categorise it. Do you have any opinion? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi MPF, This is the kind of message I really like to get. A proficient editor knowing what he/she is talking about! Yes I concur with the disputed categorization and I agree to categorize it to one of the Unidentified... categories you suggest. Pick whatever you find is broad enough to cover it for sure. Secondly, I agree it would be a good idea to undelete the sister photo (yes, it was the same specimen as you suggest) and categorize it similarly. I recall it was particularly difficult to get a shapr photo of the flower. It was veeery small, it was windy and I had focus problems (and the camera was low on battery). If you pick a suitable unidentified category and undelete the other, I will update the image page descriptions accordingly and WMF usages. Deal? --Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! I'm pretty sure on Cyperaceae, as there's no ligules where the leaves join the stems, so it isn't Poaceae. I haven't renamed the images (so as not to break links from here), but can do - MPF (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, MPF! I updated file usage and moved the files to Unidentified Cyperaceae....jpg. Now that we are at it with the identifications, could you maybe have a look at my contested identification of Erigeron compositus, which is being discussed here: User talk:Slaunger/Greenland/Plants? I would appreciate to hear your opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, I'm not so well-up on Asteraceae, so don't feel able to comment on the ident of these. Sorry for the delay in replying! - MPF (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries MPF. Thanks for replying. --Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Need help.

Bonjour. I have a problem on my user page. The count for VI gives an error message. That's when he spent a thousand. I understood that the symbol would change but it does not seem to exist. It is in this template {{User:Archaeodontosaurus/Templates}} I put my counters. Can you do something? thank you --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. --99of9 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@99of9: Thx for helping Archaeodontosaurus. @Archaeodontosaurus: +1000 VIs!! Wow!!!! --Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This label is the most important, and most useful to the encyclopedia. I work every day with lots of fun. Thank you for all that you did. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)