User talk:MPF/archive5

Tilia image set

Hallo MPF. Perhaps you are right. I'm not a specialist in this case. In the book I used for determination, Tilia × euchlora was not listed, so I didn't differentiate. But it's no problem: If you confirm Tilia × euchlora, I will rename the files and change the description page and the category. Please give me a short info. --Llez (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for the info. Meanwhile the description is changed, the files transferred to the correct category and renaming of files proposed. --Llez (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Anser cygnoides f. domestica

Hallo, is "anser cygnodies f. domestica" really a synonym for Chinese goose? I believed the African goose is also an "Anser cygnoides f. domestica". A lot Geese in the Category:Chinese geese look like African geese to me... Regards, --Anika (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Chinese Geese at Raystede.jpg | Chinese... File:Anser cygnoides02.jpg| ...geese File:Қутұмсық қаз.jpg| maybe File:Oie 14082.jpg|African geese?

A matter of fine definitions, I guess. By the definitions I'm familiar with, Chinese goose = all domesticated forms of Anser cygnoides, with so-called "African" (a misnomer!) being a subset of Chinese, or even synonymous. By all means recategorise any you like as African, but maybe cat:African geese should be a subcat of cat:Chinese geese, rather than rooted directly in cat:Domesticated geese. More difficult though is that a lot of them also have some history of hybridisation with domesticated Anser anser. - MPF (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese and Africans are definitely two different breeds, that's why I don't like to say Africans are Chinese and took the loop way via Anser cygnoides. Africans are descended from the wild Swan Goose and may have a history of hybridisation with Toulouse geese, but that is only a theory because of their looks and it is also possible that they are the result of selective breeding. But I am no expert. --Anika (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the following categorisation ok with you?

• Category:Domesticated geese

• Category:Anser anser f. domestica / Category:Anser anser descent

• Category:Steinbacher geese (Descended from Greylag and Chinese geese)
• ...

• Category:Chinese geese / Category:Anser cygnoides descent

• Category:African geese (heavy goose, descended from the wild Swan Goose; APA since 1874)
• Category:Chinese geese (breed) (light goose, descended from the wild Swan Goose)
• Category:Steinbacher geese (maybe not into Category Chinese geese, because this implies no hybrids)

• Category:Goose breeds

• Category:African geese (heavy goose)
• Category:American Buff geese (medium goose)
• Category:Chinese geese (breed) (light goose)
• Category:Steinbacher geese
• ...

• ...

I am sorry for bothering you. I am only trying to get better with Commons. --Anika (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks excellent, thanks! The only one I'm a mite bothered with is "Anser anser f. domestica", as I'm fairly sure that's not a valid scientific name; an English name would be better in this situation (maybe "Domesticated greylag geese"? Maybe "European domesticated geese"? But if you can think of anything better, do) - MPF (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Greylag Goose descent and Category:Swan Goose descent or Category:Anser anser descent and Category:Anser cygnoides descent? with hybrids, like w:de:Steinbacher Kampfgans to both categories? --Anika (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Anser anser f. domestica" and "Anser cygnoides f. domestica" were found in the Wikipedia en and others, in a Dictionary [1] [2], the Humbold-University Berlin [3] and other publikations of popular science [4] [5] [6]

"Anser anser f. domestica" and "Anser cygnoides f. domestica" may both be in use, but that is not relevant; what matters is whether they conform to the specifications of the ICZN, which I'm fairly sure they don't, certainly on formatting ('f.' is botanical, not zoological, terminology; as only one rank is accepted by ICZN, zoological infraspecific taxa don't use any indicator of rank: Anser anser rubrirostris). Maybe also on evolutionary principles; human-selected variations are considered by many not to have sufficient evolutionary history to deserve separate taxonomic recognition, they are all readily able to interbreed with their natural wild ancestors. This is however disputed by others (e.g. use of the formal infraspecific name Canis lupus familiaris for dogs). To avoid such disputation, it may better to use English names than [pseudo-]scientific ones for the categories of domesticated forms. - MPF (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Cupressus glabra 01 by-dpc.jpg|Cupressus glabra

Thank you for your interest in both Cupressus images. Are you sure they are C. glabra? Is it because de resin of the leaves? If I can and if I've got time, I'll take a picture of the bark of the same tree. --DPC (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes; the resin spots on the leaves, and also the cone structure (6-8 scales), which is very distinct from C. sempervirens (10-14 scales). C. glabra is very commonly cultivated in Europe (often labelled as C. arizonica var. glabra). - MPF (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. --DPC (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank

für Deine Hilfe - an vielen Stellen! . --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 42d4a6015d55bd8e883a32828a8f34d7

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Danke

hierfür. Um Copy & Paste sinnvoll zu benutzen, sollte man ausgeschlafen haben. ;-) Herzliche Grüße, --4028mdk09 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cecropis cucullata image

Thank you for explaining situation. I accepted your changes. Also, I encourage you to have a user account in Estonian wikipedia (for example, as part of global account) and to log in. Also, if you do not speak Estonian, this is not big problem. Fill the edit summary in English, most of Estonian wikipedia authors understand that in some extent. (As you correctly guessed, "Pilt" in Estonian means "image". You said you understand some German – in German "Bild".) Taivo (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hoopeo.JPG

fr:Tyrosse, France. Salutation !

43° 39′ 38″ Nord

1° 18′ 26″ Ouest

Yug (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Merci! - MPF (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

geese

Hi MPF,

Are you sure about those identifications? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And, please, other time when you rewrite the summary of my pictures, do not delete the Hungarian version, I will rewrite it when I will have time. OK? DenesFeri (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri - yes, sure about the identities, I am very familiar with the species concerned. I can leave the Hungarian versions on any more I find; I had removed them as I don't know any Hungarian so was not able to write a correct version. I thought it was better to have no Hungarian description, than an incorrect Hungarian description that conflicted with the English description ;-) MPF (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the correct identifications. I look almost every day at my pictures, and when one of them is corrected, I rewrite the Hungaryan version; and if not that day, than the next day surely I'will. DenesFeri (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Prompted me to do an overdue upload my own pics of some Whitefronts I took in November 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - MPF (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful pictures. :) DenesFeri (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Trithrinax acanthocoma

Hello. Trithrinax acanthocoma and Trithrinax brasiliensis‎ are synonymous. Do you agree? --Allforrous (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Allforrous - I don't have any personal experience of them. WCSP treats them as separate species, but USDA GRIN synonymises them. Both are reliable authorities, so who does one follow when reliable authorities differ?? PACSOA notes that they have been lumped, but questions the validity of this, citing significant differences in seed morphology; they retain separate pages for them (Trithrinax acanthocoma, Trithrinax brasiliensis‎). On principle, until all the authorities agree, I guess it is safest to keep them separate. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WCSP indicates which authorities it follows when changing status so see "Accepted by" tab. GRIN is obviously behind updating their data.--Weepingraf (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

GRIN are not necessarily just out of date; they may disagree with the reference cited by the Kew Checklist ("WCSP"). But I have no objection to following Kew's checklist in this case. - MPF (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

File:Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg|120px

Good work with the accurate bird species identification on my recent Kenya uploads! I get it right most of the time, but it is good to have someone reviewing these things. CT Cooper · talk 15:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Crocus tommasinianus

Dear MPF,

Crocus tommasinianus is a small Crocus, which becomes easily naturalised.

Some fifteen years ago I got some seed of it in an old garden at the Belgian coast, which I sowed in my own garden. In the meantime the plants sowed themselves widely in my garden. The pictures that I have uploaded on Commons were taken in my garden.

I find these "wild plants" cuter than most cultivars sold by bulb nurseries. However, you can get such "wild plants" too in a few bulb nurseries in Holland.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! So Commons is still lacking a photo of the species from its native habitat, unfortunately - MPF (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Plants getting wild by themselves is as wild as it could get by these cultivated species. My personal opinion. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Crocus tommasinianus is called in Dutch a stinsenplant and in German a Stinsenpflanze, i.e., a plant which was introduced some centuries ago in gardens of mansions and castles and became in the meantime naturalised. Other well-known examples are Galanthus nivalis (the common snowdrop, originally from Central and Central-mediterranean Europe - presumably introduced by the Romans) and Helleborus viridis (a veterinary plant, originally from Southwest-Europe), which are naturalised in Northwest-Europe, including the British Isles. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree there; naturalised plants are not wild plants. By wild, I mean in its native habitat within its native range (S. Hungary to SW. Croatia and NW. Bulgaria) and free from human transportation in their ancestry. - MPF (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Crocus vernus, a category to be revised?

Dear MPF,

According to the World Checklist[7] the plants currently put in the category Crocus vernus sl. should be redirected as follows:

• The category Crocus vernus should be restricted to Crocus vernus (L.) Hill ss. (Syn. Crocus napolitanus Loisel.) (E. Alps to Carpathians)
• Crocus vernus subsp. albiflorus (Kit. ex Schult.) Ces. = Crocus caeruleus Weston (Pyrenees to W. Balkan Peninsula) should be redirected to the category Crocus caeruleus
• Crocus heuffelianus Herb. (E. Hungary to Carpathians), Crocus exiguus Schur = Crocus heuffelianus subsp. heuffelianus and Crocus scepusiensis (Rehmer & Wol.) Borbás ex Kulcz. = Crocus heuffelianus subsp. scepusiensis (Rehmer & Wol.) Dostál (W. Carpathians), should be redirected to a new category Crocus heuffelianus

Redirecting Crocus vernus subsp. albiflorus to Crocus caeruleus would not be a big issue. On the contrary, dividing Crocus vernus sl. and redirecting it to Crocus vernus ss. and Crocus heuffelianus (including subsp. scepusiensis) would be a tricking issue. In addition, there are pictures in the current category Crocus vernus, which are presumably cultural plants. How should these pictures be categorised? Perhaps we could put these plants in the category Crocus vernus cultivars.

What do you think about this issue? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea; the Kew checklist is more up-to-date than what I'd been using (the BSBI checklist). I've done the redirection of Category:Crocus vernus subsp. albiflorus to Category:Crocus caeruleus, and will move their images from the Crocus vernus gallery to a new Crocus caeruleus gallery shortly. Of the others, I'd agree, where feasible (images of wild plants from specified native locations) make the changes, and dump all the culivated ones into the various Crocus cultivars categories (into Crocus vernus cultivars if you're fairly sure they are cultivars of pure C. vernus, otherwise into Category:Crocus cultivars). Do you want to do this? - MPF (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not so sure about what we should do further with the other pictures. See the comment I got from Franz Xaver about this issue.

The whole thing is not that simple. In my opinion it is better not to touch the whole matter, as long as we don't really know, how many taxa exist and how they have to be named. In this group I cannot take Kew Checklist serious. Just an example: They tell us that Crocus vernus (s.str.) does only occur in the Eastern Alps and Carpathians and they base this name on Crocus sativus ß (=var.) vernus L. If you check the diagnosis of this variety by Linnaeus, you can read that it grows in the Swiss Alps (Helvetia), Pyrenees, in Lusitania (= Portugal), and Thracia (= Bulgaria, European Turkey, NE Greece), all regions outside the area indicated by Kew Checklist. As the Swiss botanist Bauhin (Bauh. pin.) is cited and Switzerland listed at first place, the name Crocus vernus certainly has to be typified with plants from the Western Alps. So, Kew Checklist and the reference they use is wrong anyway.

Please, have a look at de:Frühlings-Krokus. This article is based on a diploma thesis by Gregor Dietrich, an Austrian botanist. According to him, Crocus vernus s.lat. consists of 10 taxa, most of which are characterised by different chromosome numbers. Unfortunately, this thesis is unpublished yet, however accessible to the public in the Austrian National Library. The names used by Gregor Dietrich also have to be regarded as preliminary. Short time ago, I received a message from Gregor that now after a break of ten years he is starting to fill the gaps in order to publish his interesting results. Until this happens, it will not be possible to give a correct ID and name to all these photos. So, in my opinion at present it is best, to dump all these photos in Crocus vernus s.lat. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouch!! One point following though; the distribution given by Linnaeus refers to Crocus sativus as a whole, not specifically to Crocus sativus ß vernus - MPF (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. As I read it, the given distribution refers to the wild plants, i.e. var. vernus, and not to the cultivated plants. Anyway, this is not really important. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The distribution Linnaeus gives is of little importance. Only the type counts. No lectotype had been indicated yet, but Linnaeus certainly cultivated C. vernus and in his herbarium is possible type material from his garden: S-LINN--Weepingraf (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Pseudotsuga menziesii?

The conifers in File:CapilanoRiverRegPark-trees.jpg appear to me to be Tsuga heterophylla, not Pseudotsuga menziesii, although I cannot be sure of the individuals in the background. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Walter - well spotted, you're right! I've amended the description. - MPF (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Geese

Hello, thanks a lot for your comment! I moved the all pages and corrected the descriptions, regards, Poco a poco (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Flora Batava

Hello. Category:Uncategorized Flora Batava images is being built up, contributions would be welcome. Thank you very much. Regards ;o) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done four for a starter, can you check I'm doing them right, please? (see my recent edits) - MPF (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thx. I could be wrong, but it seems that template {{la|}} cann't cope with "=". Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update. The template {{la|1="text"}} was incomplete, sorry. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Parulidae

Sorry, but a page which was up to date in 2.10 (which this page was!) is not "too outdated to salvage" as there is no possibility to bring everything up to date twice a year - you may leave me a message, to change this page as soon as possible, but not redirect it to the category page! --Kersti (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

New ideas by User:Kersti_Nebelsiek

Hello MPF,
I have added a discussion here and there about User:Kersti_Nebelsiek new ideas.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look in - MPF (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bauhinia glabra

I move the pic of the Monkey ladder vine from Bauhinia glabra to Entada gigas. Its location and leaf shape fits the latter rather than the first. Bauhinias have a camel spoor shaped leaf, not compound like the Entadas. E. gigas is the species of the pacific area I believe. JMK (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was only giving it the category according to what the photographer had called it. Maybe the file should be renamed to something more accurate? - MPF (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

About pics of plants of Sanja565658

Hy!

Remember you wrote to me on May 17th about my photos in User:Sanja565658/Plantae, I really don`t understand do you want I read where I fount that plant or it full distribution in the World? And sorry I do not reply to you so long, but you should see remained by template (Send message to User:AfroBrazilian - this is my second, and now used account). Sanja565658 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I was meaning the place where you found the plant and took the photo. - MPF (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Location?

Hello MPF. This photo (File:Aythya nyroca.jpg) was taken at the zoo in Lodz, Poland [8]. --Chrumps (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Handroanthus heptaphyllus

Hello. Category:Handroanthus heptaphyllus needs a revision. I found this description ([9]). Any idea where is possible to get help. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! Unfortunately, not a genus I have any real familiarity with. If any of the photos show located wild specimens (probably a forlorn hope!), then allocate them according to the map (fig. 4) in the Darwiniana paper. Outside of Argentina, probably safe to assume that any Bolivian specimens are H. heptaphyllus, and any from Paraguay and SE Brazil are H. impetiginosus. If they are cultivated specimens (more likely, I fear), then if you can identify them from the details in the paper, put them in the right species category; if you can't, then dump them in Category:Unidentified Handroanthus (and remove them from any species gallery page!). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thx MPF. It's nice following you sorting out Pinopsida images, by the way. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Captive?

Re [10]: "captive" seems very unlikely for a trophy head. It is unlikely that someone shot a captive buffalo. That's a bit like shooting a domestic cow. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not free to go where it likes, it's captive in a museum ;-) But maybe Cat:Buffalo hunting might be a better place for it. MPF (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Or make a category under Category:Taxidermied Bovidae heads for Category:Taxidermied Bison heads. But I think "captive" is misleading: it tends to suggest bison ranching or bison in zoos, not trophy heads. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the former of those already exists, I've moved it there. On creating new categories, I'm not in favour of creating them to contain just one or two pics though, that's over-categorisation which defeats the purpose of making pics easy to find. - MPF (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Location?

I have added an aprox location for these pictures File:Quercus petraea port.jpg, File:Quercus petraea tronc.jpg, File:Quercus petraea fulla seca.jpg, File:Quercus petraea fulles joves.jpg

Thanks, --David Gaya (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tern map

OK, I'll do it later, I assume we are talking literally two maps to replace this? FWIW, Inkscape is a free program that edits svg. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A problem. I uploaded the Old World map as a new version of the existing map, but then when I checked on en-wiki I realised that the species is not yet split there, so the new map doesn't match the text. I've reverted for now to the old map, I'll raise the matter at WP Birds.

In the meantime, I'll upload the cropped maps as completely new maps, which means that they need not appear on species wikipages. That might be the best plan since acuflavis will have to be a new map anyway.

My computer warns me of possible damage everytime I download a pdf... Jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION

Hi!

My name is Edoardo Bit, I am an architect and also a “young researcher” of the University of Ferarra (Italy).

I am writing a book on the “green walls technologies” and I have found very interesting a photo in your page. So, I would kindly ask you if I can use it in my book.

Obviously, if you gently decide to grant me the permission, your name (or your nickname) and the link of the picture will be correctly cited in the credits of my publication.

The photo which I would use is:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hedera_colchica3.jpg

Thank you very much! I hope you will attend my request…

My e-mail is: edoardo.bit@gmail.com

Bye,

Edoardo

Hi Edoardo - thanks! Yes, you are welcome to use it, as stated in its license. Good luck with your book! - MPF (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Unidentified plant 8834.jpg

Hello MPF, I thank you for ident. --Hedwig Storch (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! - MPF (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

deleted pictures

Hi MPF,

You have deleted some of my pictures. Can you tell me why? DenesFeri (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

They were marked as 'Source: Kew Gardens'; understandably, Kew copyright all of their images, and they are therefore unavailable for upload to Commons without far clearer evidence of Kew's permission for their use (i.e., an OTRS tag linking to verified permission). Additionally, they were so small (tiny thumbnails) as to be of no real value. - MPF (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

So those were the small ones. Than is ok to delete them. And my pictures wasn't made by kew, my sister made them. Only I wrote the source Kew, because I did not know what to write there, but now I use to write kindly granted by the author. Once more: those pictures wasn't made by the kew. Deleting those small pictures is not a problem, because there are larger sized copies of them. If you meet other pictures with the source kew and uploaded by me, than please rewrite it with kindly granted by the author; OK? Thanks for your answer. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Captive categories

Please stop throwing out other relevand categories, because the bird is captive. If I search for pictures I am searching for things like "A flying bird to show the form of the wings" "A head to show head details" "a young bird to show juvenile plumage". The question if the bird is cative is irrelevant in most cases (not in all of course, as somtimes it is relevant to show the natural environment) But If I want to show the form of the wings, and look in the category for flying birds I will never find the picture of the capture fliyng bird, which may show it much better as it is not that fare away. --Kersti (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's very important not to mix up 'real' birds [wild] with 'plastic junk' [captive ones]; they are qualitatively far more different from each other than perched or flying (which an individual can switch between in under a second). In particular, bear in mind that the identity of birds in captivity can rarely be 100% trusted, as they are very commonly transported far from their native areas and hybridised with other related species without this being reported to the photographer (particularly so in e.g. Falco, where the vast majority of captive birds are of hybrid origin). If you want to separate captive birds in flight from captive birds perched, then make a new category for them (but only if there's enough for this to be worthwhile). If there are only a small number of photos of a species, you will of course very easily be able to find the pics you want by looking at each subcategory if any. - MPF (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for waiting so long with my answer, but you know that there's a live outside of Wikipedia, which sometimes doesn't leave the time to think about complicated answers in foreign languages.

Now I understand the reason for your changes, but instead of throwing the birds out in all other categories I would make up a template with this explanation and add it to all captive categories, as most people won't stop putting captive birds in Wikipedia Articles because you put them in the captive categiories. They will stop it if possible if this explanation is in every captive category - and than there is not much need of throwing them out of the flight categories, as than people will know what to think of captive birds. --Kersti (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle Owl in Tanzania 5112 Nevit.jpg

Hi MPF,

I shot File:Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle Owl in Tanzania 5112 Nevit.jpg at Masai cultural center zoo. It is not a wild shot. Thanks for interest. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Colinus nigrogularis 2.jpg source incorrect

Hi there. The Flickr URL you listed for File:Colinus nigrogularis 2.jpg takes me to an image of the same birds, but it's not the same image. Please fix this, or the image will have to be deleted. Sorry, Sven Manguard Wha? 17:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! Corrected now. Thanks for picking it up! - MPF (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for finding images to upload! Sven Manguard Wha? 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ciconia nigra

You are right. Although some individuals are residents, the vast majority are in the Iberian Peninsule just in summer, so is my mistake to be so categoric. Anyway is not real to say that this species is resident. Please excuse me and be free to revert my contribution if you think is more appropiate. Thank you for the advice. --Aleuze (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Black storks

Your changes in the Gallery of black storks, are difficult to understand. The list of common names was easier to check before you change. The images you have made ​​are very good but it is useless to put images that are too similar. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Taxonavigation is always best placed at the top; the list of common names is far less important. And no reason to limit the number of good quality images showing the species in its natural environment! - MPF (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There's one: common sense. You should be able to make a choice. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Abies alba distribution map.svg

Hello! You deleted this map with a reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:EUFORGEN Abies alba.png. This map wasn't part of the DR and nobody gave me a chance to response there. File:Abies alba distribution map.svg wasn't made by EUFORGEN, it just used data from EUFORGEN and mixed it with other data, e.g. the complete background map in a different style than EUFORGEN's map, a different projection, with different contents like rivers etc. The thematic layer wasn't copied 1:1 from EUFORGEN, it was less accurate and generalized, so there was no copyright problem. This is the usual cartographic way to produce maps. NNW (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I guess I misread the sourcing details; I've restored it now. The map could do with some corrections, though, as their treatment of Abies alba includes Abies borisii-regis, which other sources (Commons included) treat as a separate species. - MPF (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I need a source for the correct distribution then it's no problem to correct the map. Trees are definitely not my favorite topic. :o) NNW (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Be a little more contructif!

Please stop your unwanted changes and recurrent. To read your talk page I see you are customary for this kind of "work". Obviously you do not know any more than in the gallery there is no prefix required before the name of photography. Be a little more contructif. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was being constructive. Having "File:" may be optional, but it is useful for anyone copying file names for use elsewhere. Your revertion of my edit was very unconstructive; you deleted several images from the page, removed important location data relevant to other images, and introduced a very cumbersome formatting which is unhelpful to other people adding new images. - MPF (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation for the term file: is incomprehensible. I will once again sort the images by taking care of your captions and I hope we can stop there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not incomprehensible. If someone wants to copy the filename for use in a wiki somewhere, the File: prefix is usually essential, and with it omitted, less experienced users will not understand why the image they inserted is not showing (e.g. thumb|right|Pinus coulteri foliage - see: it's a red link, not a pic!). Of your other edits, they are not overly helpful: most importantly, you have mixed together verified wild origin images with undocumented and inadequately documented images (e.g. File:Crw 1691-web.jpg); that should not be done. This may not matter much with a very uniform monotypic species like Pinus coulteri, but in most cases, it can make subspecies or varietal allocation impossible, and if a species is split into two species by future research, inadequately documented images are likely to be unassignable. Some other points: Commons uses English as the default language, but "Habitus" is Latin, not English; 'paleontology' is not relevant here as there is no P. coulteri palaeontology - fossil shown is a different (un-named) species; and the headers "Bark" and "Seed" are superfluous as they just repeat the image captions and creates a needlessly long Contents list. - MPF (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopeful

I do not much believe in your definition of the prefix (File), but it's a technicality. In our case we need to describe this species monotypic. The distingo you make between wild or not does not affect the description. For cons, I totally agree with the discomfort that give the origins poorly documented. For "fossil", I even do not mind putting it, because I do not know what he's doing there.

Latin terms punctuate our science, you are a scientist and you know it. But again this is of little value if you want to suggest an English word I would see no impropriety. The cutting of seeds and bark, have utility in the description which is made ​​of the subject. I have several images of the cones of bark I should treat them as soon as possible. Finally this cutting is also a reference to the label VI, where the term "habitus" is commonly used. I see above all that we can talk and that is a significant advance in our relations. Which leaves me hopeful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rotmilan oder „Milvus migrans“

Hallo MPF,

bei der Greifvogelflugschau der Greifenwarte Wildpark Edersee am 10. Oktober 2009 wurden von mehreren Usern die in der Category:Greifenwarte Wildpark Edersee einsortierten Bilder geschossen. Darunter auch die Bilder des Milans. Während der Vorführung wurden die jeweiligen Tiere beschrieben. Der fotografierte Milan wurde sämtlich als Rotmilan beschrieben und ist nun in der Kategorisierung mal ein Rotmilan und mal ein undefinierter Milan. Kannst Du Dir den Vogel auf den verschiedenen Bildern nochmal anschauen und die Änderung der Kategorisierung in "Category:Unidentified Milvus" bei folgenden Bildern überdenken: [11] - [12] - [13]

Danke und Gruß -- Asio 17:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Identification of a gull

Hi MPF,

are you able to identify this gull Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ringkøbing14.jpg? Would be nice if you could put this picture in a better category. Thank you. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you delete these files,please?:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Rose_%28Trandafirul%29_002.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trandafirul.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picturi_Angel_004.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picturi_Angel_028.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picturi_Angel_011.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sora_mea.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picturi_Angel_014.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picturi_Angel_012.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spartanul_001.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spartanul_005.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spartanul_006.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_009_lebada.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spartanul_013.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spartanul_013.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narcissus_reality_and_painting.JPG

They don't have educational purpose for commons.

oo, and this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nymphaea_from_Balchik_Palace_2.JPG

The reason: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nymphaea_from_Balchik_Palace.JPG

I've deleted the duplicate File:Nymphaea_from_Balchik_Palace_2.JPG. The others should really go through review (click on 'Nominate for deletion' in the toolbox at the left-hand side of each pic), someone might find them useful, e.g. File:Narcissus reality and painting.JPG could be used to illustrate an article on art techniques. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Gladysszow lipiec 2012 26.JPG

Location and description are available through categories. There is nothing I can add that is not available through them and just seeing what's on the pic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Stork attacking own mirror image.jpg

Hi MPF,

Re your edit of File:Stork attacking own mirror image: you placed it in cat. "Ciconia ciconia in captivity", but this was more or less in the middle of nowhere, an abandoned restaurant-building along the Tisza river in Eastern Hungary, absolutely no captivity! I undid you revision, hope you agree. (here is another pic of the same stork)
Greetings,
Maarten Sepp (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, no problem! - MPF (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cirsium eriophorum

Dear MPF,

These pictures were taken in the Savoie (French Alps), at an altitude of about 1,900 m.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

QI and zoo

Hi,

Being a zoo picture is not a reason for decline. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Circium eriophorum

Hi MPF, These photos 1,2,3jpg were taken in the Pyrenees (Fabrège), at an altitude of about 2050m. Kind regards--77.194.44.96 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Merci! - MPF (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Cirse laineux

Hi MPF. File:Cirse laineux.JPG, File:Cirse laineux (1).JPG, File:Cirse laineux (3).JPG and File:Cirse laineux (4).JPG were taken at Saint-Jory-las-Bloux, in Dordogne, along departmental road 73, approximatively {{Object location|45|19|55.4|N|0|57|15.5|E}}. Père Igor (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Merci! - MPF (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

London zoo photos

Hi MPF, File:Sturnus vulgaris London Zoo 00860.jpg, File:Sturnus vulgaris London Zoo 01055.jpg are just visitors outside the cages... Best Regards, --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Polystichum lonchitis and Veratrum album

Dear MPF,

The two pictures Polystichum lonchitis and Veratrum album were taken in July 2009 in the alpine zone of the Grandes Rousses, above Vaujany, Dauphiné (French Alps).

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The pictures Veratrum album002 and Veratrum album003, were taken one month ago around Valmorel, Savoie, on an altitude of about 1,400 m.

For your info: My pictures of alpine plants were all taken on the following locations in the French Alps:

• 2008 around Tignes and Val d'Isère (edge of the Vanoise, Savoie),
• 2009 around Vaujany and Alpe d'Huez (Grandes Rousses, Dauphiné),
• 2010 around Tignes (Savoie),
• 2011 around Vaujany (Dauphiné).

The pictures of 14 July 2011 were taken in the Jardin Botanique Alpin du Lautaret (This is indicated on the summary of the file, and the pictures are also categorised further as such).

• 2012 around Valmorel (8 to 13 July) and La Plagne (14 to 20 July), Savoie

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: The pictures of 14 July 2009 were also taken in the Jardin Botanique Alpin du Lautaret.

You are right. I should indeed add the location on my (more the 4,000) pictures. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are interested, you can see my pictures of plants, alphabetically ordered on en:User:Meneerke_bloem/Photographic_Collection (first page of 15 pages). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested images

Hello,

I saw you have placed a request of a native specimen photograph of Sorghum halepense. I know of a group ( http://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix )that has a collection of more than 6000 Indian plant species, with photos. The members of the group are highly knowledgeable of the subject, some are Botany Head of Departments in universities. They are all good folks are open to requests if you ask them for images. I did check and many photos of Sorghum halpense are available, taken in north India. I would recommend you to check with them.

I'm just trying to spread the word. Sincerely Shivashree (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll take a look there, and see what they have; I see from the front page that at least some of their images are creative commons licensed. - MPF (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Beware, your behavior is disrespectful

Beware, your behavior is disrespectful. Your personal reasons, have no place in the gallery. Remove Label images promoted, can be considered vandalism. Can you explain on this point. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not bring proof that the File parameter: is required. You have not explained the withdrawal of labels in the gallery. You try your power by intimidation administrator. The gallery is not your property. Start by discussing the various problems. A neutral administrator should arbitrate this dispute. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Although I note that we can speak normally. I accept your version as labels. If you wish we can discuss their usefulness later with User: Slaunger, who created the label VI. I find it hard to understand your phobia Museum. It is a necessity that there have. I fully understand that you wanted to focus on images of endemic species. I have great sadness that we can not find common ground on details. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It isn't a 'phobia', more that I think it is more useful to group images by location type (natural / cultivated or captive / museum) rather than life stage (adult / egg / etc). They are (usually) more easily defined this way; e.g. a photo of an adult bird standing next to its nest with eggs, do you put it under 'adults', or 'nests', or 'eggs'? But the division between 'natural' and 'museum' is sharply definable. I'd agree this is a fairly minor point though. - MPF (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• • We must find a balance between the two poles of our activity. The pole nature, and the museum pole. Many images in the gallery do not allow grading, visual, between natural or cultivated. This is why we must encourage good captions, with a maximum of information and if possible a geocoding. This is especially the purpose of the label VI. VI encourages the creation of Gallery. Many in COMMONS not see the usefulness of the Gallery and was extremely unfortunate. We agree on 90% of our objectives, the rest is merely incidental. If we can talk occasionally on some topics that we instead if I will not need to get your attention by changing the prefix "File". All I request was able to discuss before we act and we put each other in anger. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Carnegiea gigantea photos

I really don't appreciate your characterizing my and others' Carnegiea gigantea photos as "low quality" and deleting them from the gallery. A casual snapshot could be justifiably pruned, sure, but for instance I and Ies took careful photos illustrating particular features, and spent some time preparing them for WP. You're going to a need a better reason to avoid reversion. Stan Shebs (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The images are lacking important detail of the plants' origins; where did the Springs Preserve garden, and the Ethel M Botanical Cactus Garden, obtain them from? As cultivated plants of unspecified origin, they are of low botanical value, and their identity more open to question. Can you can obtain details of the origin of these specimens from the curators of those gardens? They may also show abnormal characters by reason of cultivation in a climate or conditions different to their native ones; the species does not occur naturally (map) within ~150 km of Las Vegas, and there must be reasons preventing its occurring there given its ease of avian seed dispersal. - MPF (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, do you even have any firsthand knowledge of this species? First of all, there are no varieties and not even that much variation among individuals. They tend not to like the freezing conditions that are typical of the Mojave vs Sonoran deserts, and it probably affects young plants disproportionately; on the drive between Phoenix and LV for instance, you can see a gradual and patchy transition from stands of saguaro to stands of Joshua trees. In any case, I don't recall a rule that galleries may only include images of plants in habitat, nor a rule that images of cultivated plants are considered "low quality" and thus not suitable for galleries; this seems more like something you've taken it upon yourself to decide for others. Stan Shebs (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; seen them in the wild in Arizona, near Tucson. Granted there's no varieties currently known, but that's something that could always change with future research - suppose (as has happened with many other species) that a deep genetic divide is found between populations in different areas resulting in the division into two or more cryptic species, then cultivated plants of unknown origin would have to be allocated to "Category:Unidentified Xxxxx", while plants at, or from, known locations, can be allocated based on the population they are known to be in. Additionally (though it doesn't apply to your pics here), there's the point that labels in gardens very often can't be trusted - see e.g. my edit to File:FerocactuaHBJBUNAM.JPG which is manifestly not what its label states. Errors like this are alarmingly common; one report I came across (I'll try to dig out the details) found that 40% of botanical garden specimens in a genus analysed were mislabelled. Anyway, I can put your pics back in the gallery, though it would be useful if you could get their provenance details (if known!). - MPF (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

re: Location

I've added the location on the images. Cheers. --ecelan (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Rhamnus cath kz.jpg

I have added the location. Kenraiz (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Pi d'en Xandri.jpg

Please see File talk:Pi d'en Xandri.jpg.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nerium oleander

Hi MPF, thanks for noticing the erroneous geocode of File:Nerium oleander Tunisia 01.jpg. I made the correction a few moments ago. The site is indeed in Tunisia. --Cayambe (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Location?

Do you have a photo location for File:Charal kuruvi.jpg please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ans: Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kannur Sidheeq (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank u very much Sidheeq (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Nuez del cacao 18 cm.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Nuez del cacao 18 cm.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

George Miquilena · talk 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help, it isn't my original upload (I just enhanced the photo's light levels) - MPF (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture locations

I have been told that the below pictures were taken around Coimbatore by the OTRS respondent.

• File:Bird_by_Usha_Eugene.jpg
• File:Bird_2.jpg
• File:Bird_3.jpg
• File:Bird_4.jpg
• File:Bird_6.jpg
• File:Bird_7.jpg
• File:Bird_8.jpg
• File:Unidentified_owl.jpg
• File:Unidentified_eagle.jpg

– Adrignola talk 01:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Uploadable file types

You added a section about uploadable file types at Commons:File types, expressing them by file extension. Type and extension is not the same thing. Does the choice mean that Commons de facto restricts uploads by extension, not by type? A am also sceptical about giving a summary that says nothing about the problems with some of the types (e.g. codecs for ogg). --LPfi (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please expand it if you can - I came to that page trying to find a list of what file extension names Commons can accept, and found nothing. A serious omission considering the number of years Commons has been in existence. So I started a list of a few that I knew of and asked others to complete it. "Type and extension is not the same thing" - that's another major omisssion from the page, why is there nothing explaining the difference?? If you can add something about it (in jargon-free "simple English"), please do! "Does the choice mean that Commons de facto restricts uploads by extension, not by type?" No idea! - MPF (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to be late to answer. My concerns above are true, but the matter is not simple - "just show me how to fly" :-)

I will try to return to the matter, but I have not had the time and I do not know MediaWiki more than superficially. You are right that the concepts should be explained in a way most uploaders can understand, but I am afraid it cannot be done in a summary. The simple difference you are asking about is that the type of a file (in this context) is about the contents of the file, while the extension is part of its name. You can call any file image.jpg, but if it was a word document it will stay a word document (even if Word refuses to open it until you give it a name with the proper extension).

--LPfi (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Gallinula chloropus/galeata

As far as I know, the AOU is currently the only major ornithological organization recognizing this recent taxonomical split of theirs. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but don't you think we could wait with updating all the maps and categorization until it has been more widely accepted? — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's accepted by IOC, who are the international authority followed by Commons (and many / ?most wikipedias including en:wiki); I wouldn't have done it if it was just AOU. Actually, if I remember rightly, IOC preceeded AOU on taking it up; the first to do so was SACC (South American regional committee) - MPF (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wasn't aware of that, thanks. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Location File:Hawaiian Common Gallinule RWD2.jpg?

Hi MPF, I added the following comment in that file's description. "Kauai, Hawaii near the town of Hanalei (made famous in the song Puff the Magic Dragon)."

I remember that photo well. There were a pair of birds and they were most willing to pose for photos. DickDaniels (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Location

Hello, MPF. You have new messages at Anton_17's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--~Anton~ 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Nav image 03.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Nav image 03.jpg. 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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Nav image 03.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help, it isn't my original upload (I just enhanced the photo's colour levels). But go ahead and delete anyway, it's a minuscule pic, effectively useless - MPF (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Spangled Kookaburra

Hi MPF, File:Spangled Kookaburra.jpg, was shot at the Jurong Bird Park in Singapore. I added this to the English description. Dougjj (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Loon, common 04-24 a.jpg

Hi MPF, That photo was taken at Sunset Beach, North Carolina.
We are now at our summer home in New Hampshire, but will be leaving in 2 weeks for North Carolina again. Looking forward to it. DickDaniels (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Serial copyvio

Here's the dr for those files from Min.neel: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Min.neel. INeverCry 01:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi MPF, I've removed the "from Iran" from your section header[14] on COM:AN, as such an association seems to be completely unnecessary (and may even border to PA). Of course, all patroling users know that the copyvio-upload frequency is unevenly distributed among countries (though I see no special problem with Iran), but we shouldn't communicate that in an offensive manner. --Túrelio (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough. I'd put it because I'd earlier come across 3 other very similar sets of copyvio contributions (all from the same small area), and hardly any others from elsewhere uploading copyvio bird-related pics. - MPF (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please delete

Could you perhaps delete the following page [15] that I created by accident? The category by the same name must stay however. JMK (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Done! - MPF (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! If possible, could you change "Category:Nature Reserves in Pretoria" to "Category:Nature reserves in Pretoria", i.e. lower cap like others of the same type? JMK (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! - MPF (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Category:Callinan should be Category:Cullinan, if you have time. JMK (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Srebrnasti galeb.JPG

MPF, done. Regards :-) --Roberta F. (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Drexel Park Bald Cypress sign.JPG

Wow, no notice on my talk page, no speedydelete template on the photo's page just wam, bam, delete. So sorry, please tell me how a little sign about a tree is no different from a Category:Church signs or Category:Trail signs. Nice to meet you too. --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mjrmtg - unfortunately, it's a violation of the copyright of the illustrator and author of the information on the sign, and as such is a candidate for speedy deletion. This doesn't apply to signs like trail signs that don't contain any originality, but in this instance there was original artwork (the drawing of the tree) and more complex text, so copyright does apply. In the USA, there is no freedom of panorama, so its presence in a publicly accessible position doesn't allow for reproduction. Sorry! - MPF (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Chimaphila umbellata

Hi Silk666 - do you have a photo location for File:Chimaphila umbellata fleur.JPG please? Merci! - MPF (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, MPF! Silk666 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Merci! - MPF (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bird identification

Just wanted to say thanks for the birds identification . Best regards, --SamuelFreli (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! - MPF (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Info

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

Orchi (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

location of Sapium sebiferum

I have add coordinate of File:Sapium sebiferum 4939.JPG and File:Sapium sebiferum 4940.JPG.--Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

GFDL

There is a discussion at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposal:_Change_to_FP_criteria_for_new_nominations:_disallow_.22GFDL_1.2_only.22_and_.22GFDL_1.2_and_an_NC-only_license.22; please participate. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Embothrium Coccineum

Hi MPF. Done. --Butterfly austral (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Brachychiton populneus tree.jpg

Please stop vandalising my image Brachychiton populneus tree. If you wish to upload the original image from which I cropped this, then feel free to do so. However I cropped this image for a specific reason, and the image is being used, as I intended, in other places. This is NOT an issue of size. It is ENTIRELY an issue of illustrative purpose. By uploading a different image over mine, you are engaging in vandalism, not only of Wikimedia, but of the associated projects. Please stop. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons policy is to use the highest resolution available. Your version of File:Brachychiton populneus tree.jpg is not just cropped, but also severely downsized - if I uploaded the original separately, your version would be liable to nomination for deletion as a downsized redundant / duplicate file. You also removed textual data (location of the image, which is important, and link to the species page) that I had added. It is not vandalism to follow Commons policy, so you will withdraw the false accusations of vandalism. Thank you. - MPF (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Must be nice

Must be nice that you get to nominate things for deletion and then delete them yourself. --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mjrmtg - unfortunately, it's a violation of the copyright of the illustrator and author of the information on the sign, and as such is a candidate for speedy deletion. In the USA, there is no freedom of panorama, so its presence in a publicly accessible position doesn't allow for reproduction. Sorry! - MPF (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I just noticed that you moved my last few files from Category:Laridae to Category:Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus in flight, thanks, I didn't know such category existed before for birds in flight. Thanks again. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Every species has its own category on Commons by its scientific name (using the IOC list for taxonomy) - MPF (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

moving my pic categories

see here. this is the second time this has happened. if you don't agree, please comment on the picture's talk page and don't move it again in the same way till we have a discussion. Thank you, --SuperJew (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a domesticated bird not a natural wild specimen of Gallus gallus, therefore belongs in the category for domesticated birds Category:Chickens or one of its subcategories; of those, Category:Roosters is the most appropriate. - MPF (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow Lorikeets

How do you know that File:Wild Adventures colorful birds in Lorikeet's Landing 1.jpg and File:Wild Adventures colorful birds in Lorikeet's Landing 2.jpg are not Rainbow Lorikeets? --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Because Rainbow Lorikeet has recently been split into several species, and which of the segregate species these birds are has not been determined. As they are captive birds, the possibility of hybrids between two or more of the segregate species also cannot be excluded (they cannot hybridise in the wild as the species all have separate ranges which do not overlap; this makes allocation of wild birds easy by location). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)