User talk:Tony Wills/Archive009

Archives.
4/Mar/07 - 29/Aug/07
29/Aug/07 - 6/Dec/07
6/Dec/07 - 31/Jan/08
1/Feb/08 - 10/Dec/08
11/Dec/08 - 29/Jun/09
30/Jun/09 - 31/Dec/09
1/Jan/10 - 26/Dec/10
1/Jan/11 - 1/Jun/11

My works, full gallery
My works, in reverse chronological order
My derivative works or contribution of free use material from external sources, in reverse chronological order
(All other uploads are just general maintenance, reversions etc of existing wikimedia files)

:-)	When I would be wearing a happy face if I was in face to face conversation with somebody. Meaning simply that I am not unhappy, not angry, no animosity is meant etc and the context should show whether I am happily agreeing, or respectfully dis-agreeing. Perhaps people should be very worried when I don't punctuate a conversation with a smile! ;-) [← that was a joke]
;-)	I am making a joke or pun, or I am having a good humoured dig at something, or I don't really believe what I just said
:-(	I am sad that you think that, or I am sorry for what I have said/done
:-|	I am trying not to smile in case you take it the wrong way

File talk:Paleo-hebrew - alef.png

Just in case you weren't follwowing and would like to respond – cheers, Dan Pelleg (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Finally found time to respond. By the way, your photos are awesome, I love this one – poetry ☺ Dan Pelleg (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Hi the translation is on my page --Neozoon (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BY

"By" means "city" or "town". So, yes, there's plenty of other places with that name and it's a horribly inadequate name for a file. DS (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be in-adequate for a description of a photograph, but it is an entirely "adequate" name for a file. It is the name of the place after all.

I am sorry if I appear to be frustrating your work, you certainly have found some badly named files, but that doesn't automatically mean that anything is gained by renaming them. These are not article names, we do not need to disambiguate them. There are just so many types of references that can break by renaming files, leaving a poor file names causes no real harm, renaming a file often breaks connections. Rename only when really necessary. Look at the file descriptions and categorization, that's where we need real effort put in. Have a guess as to how many files there are without descriptions or categories? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

PS if you really just want to concentrate on file names, catch the bad file names as they are uploaded [1] and ask the uploader to suggest a better name (they might think more carefully next time too). If files are renamed early we don't need to keep a redirect and it saves problems later on. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not the name of the place. It is a description, like "house" or "street" or "valley". And there is a lot of harm that comes from having bad file names when people do not pay proper attention, and use the wrong file name or upload a different file over it, which happens a lot. And yes, we need to pay attention to this early as well. And I know exactly how many files do not have proper (or any) descriptions or category tags, which is a problem too. But remember, Commons is used by humans. DS (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? w:By,_Norway

Also, for the record, I've been cleaning up this same type of mess on enwiki with the images that are marked as "move to Commons". Better to fix them before they're transwiki'd, obviously, but I only realized the range of the problem in February of this year (dealing with a frantic acquaintance whose article was rendered nonsensical when a new image was uploaded over a pre-existing name). DS (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So, as I've said before, the problem is not the filename, the problem is people uploading files over top of existing files, which I believe the old upload page discouraged, but the new upload wizard prevents. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming the Khad-Logos

Of course, a file need not be a full description, but in the case of logos, flags, coat of arms, a precise and descrptive name make the use of such images much easier, especially for non-native speakers. I made dozens of such request, als of them were fulfilles with the reaseon of "correct description" and "series of files"--Antemister (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

NeilsErikson Pics -- your comment on my talk page

Tony -- while you are technically correct that if they are on his User page on WP:EN, they are in scope here, it is only a matter of time before User:NeilsErikson is deleted. I had already given him enough bad news -- I was trying to avoid hanging a deletion tag there -- I would prefer to let somebody else be the bad guy there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I don't think his user page would get deleted if he was actually contributing to the 'pedias. I tend to have the attitude that if he's not actually doing any harm (like the thousands of copyright violations), then nurture him instead of trying to chase him away. What is the point?

I have seen many personal pictures tagged for deletion almost immediately they were uploaded, why do we do this? People come here for all sorts of reasons, if we are welcoming they might stay and help. If they just came to make personal pages, and never get involved, then there is plenty of time to delete their pages. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony -- I agree with you in principal, but the fact is that we don't have a mechanism for actually dealing with "then there is plenty of time to delete their pages" so if we don't deal with the out of scope User pages early, they will be with us forever -- there's really no such thing as "User Page Patrol." I suppose we could argue that it costs next to nothing -- maybe a few megabytes of storage -- but what's the point of saying we're not Flickr or Facebook, if we actually allow people to mimic them?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bill Willers and 'the centaur of Tymfi"

Yes, that centaur has a name. The centaur of Tymfi was the second centaur designed by Bill Willers, the first being the centaur of Volos (which can be googled). The person who was hired at Skulls Unlimited would never have made that centaur if not hired. He did not choose anything about it... not even its positioning. That skeleton's position was determined in the original sketch drawn around 1984. Skimsata's part of this project fell under "work for hire". How does Skimsata have an excuse for posting this and never even mentioning the name of the person who hired him and designed the piece? This omission makes Skimsata look very suspect.

If you want contact information for Bill Willers so that you may contact him directly, you may contact me at annclancylmt@comcast.net I will be happy to pass it along privately. Sincerely, Ann Clancy

PS - I understand that Skimsata's motivation is to promote his business. He is short sighted in using the idea that bones can't be copyrighted. Any artist out there who becomes aware of this will avoid Skulls Umlimited like the plague. He certainly is proving his lack of artistic ethics.

Bill Willers contact

Dear Tony Wills: Thank you for your involvement in this Centaur issue. I'd like to correspond, and I have some photos that may be of interest, as well as correspondence sent to Skulls. Best, Bill Willers

Thanks for the categories - HotCat

by the way: thanks for adding categories to uncategorized images - If you use "HotCat" the mark "image needing categories" will be removed automatically, under "My Preferences" and Gadgets. Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

:) :) - you have more experiences than I on this site - I have answered on my page. Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

by the way: I definitively do not think that your new way to add categories to uncategorized files and leave the "uncategorized" tag is a good idea , for instance here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_needing_categories_as_of_1_May_2009 - I do not think that anybody with the specific knowledge needed will come along here and add further and better categories. I have to stop my usual work with these files if I come along to a page with your new mixing of categories and uncategorized tags. Best wishes and good luck Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:2004_Featured_pictures_on_Wikimedia_Commons

Category discussion notification

Category:2004_Featured_pictures_on_Wikimedia_Commons has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

124.168.218.92 12:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Tony_Wills_temp_category

Category discussion notification

Category:Tony_Wills_temp_category has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

84user (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Tony Wills. You have new messages at Nikhilchandra81's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Covers

I see you adding the above category to many images recently but this category is not for "Album covers", "Book covers" or "Magazine covers" which have their own categories. Perhaps you can categorise these images more appropriately. This category is for all types of postal covers and should really be empty as there are plenty of subcategories. I think "Book covers" should be a subcategory of a different category. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think the term "Covers" is rather too generic to use just for "Postal covers", and we will forever get all types of covers added there. Really the structure needs to be "Covers" with "Postal Covers", "Book covers", "Magazine covers", etc as sub-categories. I will endevour to put things into more specific sub-cats, sorry for the innundation of unwanted images :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Covers is too generic to have anything but subcats in it, but try to keep it clear is neigh impossible. Perhaps it should be deleted. I'll mention your thoughts to a few other philatelic editors and see if we can come up with something better. I've tried to clear out as many as possible when they are clear. BTW, it seems to me that many album, book and magazine covers are copyright and should be deleted; many are not even used. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am moving things out of there at the moment. Some things you just can't fight, other areas try having a "uncategorised covers" or "unidentified covers" type category for putting new stuff into that needs sorting, but with so many new users who only ever categorise a few images of their own, they will always find the generic category name first and stop looking at that point. In general I think have the genric top level category to catch those new files, and just be thankful that someone added a category at all :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

a recent move

Hi Tony,

This recent move Strikes me as a bit odd as the other images by the same author (from 8:12 up to 9:52 according to the EXIFs) were all taken in the same national park. The lapwing image was taken bang in the middle of that time span. And, on a different note, when are we going to see some more of your local fauna and flora images? Cheers. Hans 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What can I say, he decided that he wasn't sure it was taken there and was so sure that he originally wanted to delete it. Maybe, you can revive his memory with your evidence of timestamps? Easy enough to change the description back, and re-insert in the article.

Re photographs, I have taken a few ;-). My old camera is a bit warn out, I bought an old Canon 20D, but couldn't afford a decent lens (probably should have just bought a new cheapy camera instead). And then got caught in the rain and now the shutter button is a bit iffy (just as well it wasn't a new camera after all ;-). But I do have a few pics .... will upload them eventually :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. Not that important, just a bit weird. Thanks. Hans 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Tony Wills. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning: Media needing categories as of "Month" 2009

I have a few questions and problems with these categories:

1) What is the reason for creating these categories? All the files are already categories as uncategorized by the template.

2) If you add a category you have to remove the template uncategorized. As far as I can see you have not done that for any of the files.

I would like you to stop doing what you are doing until this issue is resolved. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Some tools, eg search can only find files when they are actually tagged with a category (using "incategory:"), and won't work with a template category. If you compare the files tagged by template into the "uncategorized" categories, you will find that my categories are now a subset as I moved files out of there as I categorized them. They are a good place to look for completely uncategorized images.

2) I do not "have to" do anything ;-). Like you, I am a volunteer using my own time to help with the project. The "uncategorized" template was added by another user using a bot, it is not some sort of system attribute. If, when maintaining images I chose to add or remove such a template it is entirely up to me. If those that believe the template is useful, want to add or remove it, that is up to them.

I am not sure what problem you believe I am causing. I do not believe images are properly categorized when they have just one category added (especially something like "unidentified logos"), any more than they are categorized when they are in a category called "uncategorized". My hope is that by adding top level general categories to images, those who are working in that area will move them to more specific categories, and if they have time will categorized them properly. If they use "hotcat" to do that, it will automatically remove the "uncategorized" template.

Eventually the uncategorized bot owner will do another full run that will pick up all the images that now have categories, and it will remove the template. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen too soon as it is easier finding these images that still need attention while they have the template tag. An alternative strategy on my part would be to tag them as needing attention in some other way, I am open to suggestions.

There are images going back 2 to 3 years without any categories (about 180000), as far as I can see the backlog is growing longer. I am endevouring to get them into the category structure, in locations that will give them a chance of being found by those interested enough to categorize them fully. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is an official system to handle uncategorized files and you are disrupting it. Additionally you are spamming watchlists by editing files four times for something where one edit would have been enough. Also people are categorizing pictures but don't remove your private category, because it is not part of the system [2], [3], [4].

The safest way to prevent files from ever being categorized properly is to add them to some user specific category. And this is what you are doing. Therefore before you start a new category I want you to empty the other categories and delete them.

And the third thing is that it does not make sense to categorize a map that obviously shows China into unidentified maps. Things that are easily identifiable should be put at least in the main categories. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Official system? Disruption? Sorry it isn't and I am not :-). I may not be working the way you would like, but different is not disruption. I can not see any logic of how an extra "uncategorized" category can prevent images from being categorized, please explain more fully.

Spamming watchlists? Never heard of that one before :-). I have never heard of anyone complaining about how many edits other users have made to a description page. And I wonder quite what files that I have edited are on many watchlists, if they are marked as uncategorized, who besides the uploader and a bot has them on a watchlist? If someone has edited them, why haven't they bothered to add a category or two?

When I have finish, those categories will probably be empty, you are welcome to help categorize the remaining files before then.

The last point has some validity. But this is an iterative process. The idea is to move files en-mass to suitable category branches (eg seperate uncategorised images into say portraits, logos, maps etc etc). Then when there is enough images together, move them to suitable sub-categories etc. The question of where to initially move an image is a good question, ideally I would just like to have an "category:uncategorized maps" category (but I don't think there is one), I could move them to "category:maps" but people like to keep such categories clear. So such places as "category:unidentified maps" seems to be the best place. The trouble is, different people work in different ways, some people like new images to go into say "category:maps" and only put images they can't identify into "category:unidentified maps", but in general I think that is the least suprising place to add lots of new images. This is not a lifetime occupation, I expect to finish soon, and get back to refining categories on individual images. If someone else has already moved those images to more specific categories, well and good, if not I will get to them sooner or later. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

These extra uncategorized category makes it look as if the file was categorized. So the bot will remove the template and the file will never be properly categorized. The only reason that the system for uncategorized files exists is that there are so many uncateogrized files that the special page that you otherwise would use to find uncategorised files is useless. And yes it is the official system. If you don't empty the categories in due time I will.

A category category:uncategorized maps is idiotic because if a file is in that category it is categorized. The point is that the unidentified categories are for files that a difficult to identify. You are simply making the work for people much more difficult if you mix files that are easy to identify with files that are difficult. Plus I get the feeling that you don't understand what categorizing a file means.

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The categorization bot already ignores many categories (eg licensing categories), and I expect it would be trivial to get it to ignore categories that are a subcategory of category:Uncategorized if it doesn't already (I'll check with the bot herder). The files marked with the uncategorized template are simply ones that haven't yet been categorized and the bot couldn't automatically suggest categories for them because there are no incoming links (eg wikipedia pages) that give hints on categories to add. They are not intrinsically difficult to categorize to some level (eg there are an extrodinary number of logos and portraits of men). Thank you for your offer to help clear the remaining files from these categories, you could use cat-a-lot to remove the by-month category, but that would simply leave them as uncategorized, so if possible please add a category or two as you go. The files remaining in those categories are ones that need looking at individually, or don't fit into categories I am currently considering. (I am currently working on September 2009, which has been problematic because one day (6th Sep) had about 3700 uncategorized files, whereas most days had less than 100.).

Your point about "unidentified categories" is valid. But it is a lot easier for someone working in a particular field, (eg coats of arms), to classify new images into a system they work with everyday, than for someone else to understand the way things are being done (and even then different people in the same field will have different ideas). Are you saying no category at all (and an ever growing backlog of uncategorized files) is better than an initial, in-exact category, or that there is a better place to put images in-bulk? Personally I think my categories are better than a swag of bot generated ones that I often come across. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why you don't use the 6th Sep 2009 uncategorized category. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As it isn't a 'real' category, tools that don't understand 'templated' categories can't use it (I don't know why he didn't just add a hidden category to each image, rather than a template, but maybe that was before his bot ignored classes of categories, so could ignore itself?). As I work I remove the uncategorized-by-month category (or at least, that is the way I am working now), so I can see which still have no categories. I use cat-a-lot to move groups of visually identifiable images, so generally it is useful to have reasonable sized categories so that I can find a significant number of like images to collect together and move in one go. So for each month I collected together each of the daily categories into a monthly category. For Sep09 I did one pass using all the days except 6thSep and after I reduced the number significantly I added the 6thSep images. There was probably something like 5500 totally uncategorized images for Sep09, that is down to 2,675 currently. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot works on these categories and that is the tool you are using. So what is the problem? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to actually "move" or "copy" a file from those categories with cat-a-lot? For a "move" it tries to remove the current category, which it can't find, for "copy" it tries to add the new copy after the current category, but again fails because it again can not find it. The original version of cat-a-lot (before it was totally rewritten) I think also had an "add" function (which doesn't require a category to already be there), the current version only has "add" functionality when used with "search", but you can't use "search" and "incategory:" for templated categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But you have been using cat-a-lot for adding a category although the file was only categorized by the template. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that took a bit of work :-). Initially I added categories to images in those templated directories, but it was difficult to keep track of which files I had worked on (as cat-a-lot cannot remove the templates), hence the creation of real categories. I have suggested that the category bot adds real categories, but have received no response about why it would not be a good idea. Anyway as you can see there is a need for those categories, and hopefully they will be short lived and empty by the time I have finished. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason why the uncategorized category is not a "real" category is that it is not a real category. And why are you using your extra category if you admit that you are not actually needing them? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

? You seem to be talking in circles? And I think I have clearly explained why the category is needed? --Tony Wills (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not. You only said something unspecific about making something easier. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There probably are other means to achieve the same result. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Car redirects

Just a heads up - OSX has moved a load more of his car pictures around, and tagged the old ones for speedy again. I'm trying to sort it (doesn't help that many have been inappropriately deleted), but there's double redirects, incorrect file names being corrected etc. So a second pair of eyes would be handy...--Nilfanion (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure that I'll have time to follow that up just at the moment. -Tony Wills (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. It created some (small) problems indeed:

• You added a category such as Category:Media_needing_categories_as_of_September_2008 instead of using a template such as {{Uncategorized|year=2008|month=September|day=7}}. The advantage of using the template is that when we categorize a file in HotCat, the system automatically removes the category media needing categories.
• With your changes, all the files have two media needing categories cats and only one goes away when adding a cat, we have to remove the monthly one afterwards.

All in all, this monthly cat does not seem to help much, is implemented incorrectly and also creates a small inconvenience for categorizers like me. No big deal, but it is really worse this way. Cheers --Santosga (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Me again. I've just realized there is a bigger problem - you have in fact categorized all these files, only instead of putting them in a relevant cat, they were categorized in Category:Media_needing_categories_as_of_September_2008 as an example. This means that the bots will most probably find the file categorized and will remove the {{Uncategorized|year=2008|month=September|day=7}} template. This really is no good, could you please revert your edits? --Santosga (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See reply, your talk page :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. No harm done, then, I guess. Cheers. Santosga (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits from Multichill-Bot

Please look here File:Archival Photo - Marie Hays Heiner.jpg - a bot is removing the uncat-tag. By the way: for me it is clear that your way to cope with the uncategorized images is not useful. If you are interested in it, I can add a longer statement about it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Recategorization of Photographs of child laborers by Lewis Hine into larger Children category

Hello,

Photographs of children is an appropriate and specific category to place Photographs of child laborers by Lewis Hine into. Removing it and placing this category into the more general parent (Children) is almost over-categorizing because it is moving from the specific to the general and I'm not understanding why you feel that this is appropriate. The category system is intended to focus as specifically as possible, and this move is the exact opposite of that. I have recategorized this into Black and white photographs of children (some are sepia, but others are B&W). If you disagree with this, please discuss first before recategorizing again. BrokenSphere (Talk) 18:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On going categorization

I am currently categorising uncategorised images and adding top level categories to them to get them attached to the category system. Basically I am just visually sorting uncategorized images into piles (eg Logos, Portraits, Buildings), on the basis of the apparent main subject of the image. These categories contain images that I haven't yet finished processing, feel free to add categories to any of them and remove them from these categories:

Category:Media needing categories as of September 2008[5]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of October 2008[6]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of November 2008[7]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of February 2009[8]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of March 2009[9]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of April 2009[10]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of May 2009[11]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of June 2009[12]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of July 2009[13]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of August 2009[14]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of September 2009[15]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of October 2009[16]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of November 2009[17]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of December 2009[18]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of January 2010[19]-0

Category:Media needing categories as of February 2010[20]-0

If I am causing a problem in an area you are working on, please let me know and/or suggest a better category for me to add. Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Multichill/Categorization_stats

Template:caption

Hi I have deleted {{Caption}}, since intended usage was not so clear and it did not do anything more than {{inscription|type=caption}}. It can be recreated in the future if there is use for it (we can change its usage if needed). I have tried to simplify {{Inscription}}, it should be reasonably maintainable.--Zolo (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

* Frohe Weihnacht und einen guten Start ins neue Jahr
* Prettige Kerstdagen en een gelukkig nieuw jaar
* Merry Christmas and a happy New Year
from --Neozoon (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

* Happy New 2012 Year! *

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note

Commons:Village pump#Sorting Category:Copyright violations by date rather than name might interest you, since you changed Template:Duplicate accordingly some months ago ;-) Thanks for that, btw. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I see you've made the changes, hope it works :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful photoos

Hi Tony,

just to let you know that I really enjoyed taking a look at your birdpictures! Beautiful. I was checking the page on the Pukeko, to find the Latin and Dutch name. And then I saw your good picture of the flying Pukeko. And that's how I found all the other beautiful pictures in your gallery. Greetings, and keep up the good work! - Dick Bos (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)