Open main menu

Useful links (from the welcome message)Edit

Commons Help desk
IRC tutorial (direct access to IRC)
CommonSense tool
  • To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg
  • Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply mark it like this: {{rename|the_new_name|reason for renaming}} and wait for an administrator or filemover to rename it.
  • Do you want to have your picture removed, for other reasons? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}.

Flora Javae picsEdit

Hi Wikiklaas - thanks for the note, sorry if I caused any upset. I moved the courtesy notes because when they were 'outside the box', they were rather inconspicuous, and I felt they deserved greater prominence in the Summary box (they went in the English part because they were in English; if you had put the courtesy notes in Dutch, I would have put them in the NL language part of the summary, rather than the English). Many thanks for getting and uploading the pics, by the way! - MPF (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MPF! At first I got the feeling I did something wrong when I saw your changes. I'll be thinking of translating the notes into Dutch and German as well, because I always provide these languages in addition to the English descriptions of the files I upload. My native language, as you may have noticed on my user page, is Dutch, by the way. - Wikiklaas (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming my fileEdit

DieBuche, you renamed my file "Jussieu Antoine de.jpg" into "Jussieu Antoine Laurent.jpg". I asked for the renaming of this file on May 18, so I'm glad at last someone took notice. But when I created the tag, I asked for the file to be renamed into "Jussieu Antoine Laurent de.jpg". It's not quite clear to me but I guess you misread the tag and omitted the " de" in the new name. Would you be able to correct that? Meanwhile I asked for two other files, derived from the same picture, to be renamed too, on the same date. Can you see if you can find "Jussieu Antoine de cropped.jpg" and "Jussieu Antoine de medaillon.jpg" and rename them according to the tag included? And if these questions bother you, can you tell me how I could get the appropriate rights to rename my files myself because it certainly bothers me if it takes about two weeks before my applications for renaming files are taken into consideration and then only in part. - Wikiklaas (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mistook the de as a suffix for "german"; I'll rename those later. You can apply here Commons:Requests for rights‎--DieBuche (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
all done. I moved the first name to the front though, since this is de facto standard on commons--DieBuche (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Wikiklaas - nice work on checking Magnolia identities! I just re-named that file that was misidentified as "M. hypoleuca" (and also removed it from the Polish wiki M. obovata page). If you find any more that need filename changes, drop me a note and I can move them for you - MPF (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You're welcome. With filenames, my feeling is that where a filename is just fairly random (e.g. "flower 12345.jpg") then I don't bother to change it, but where it is misleading (e.g. a Magnolia virginiana photo named "Magnolia grandiflora 1234.jpg"), then it is best to change it. So any you find of the latter type, let me know. - MPF (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomenclatural corrections! I was using the Magnolia Society webpage and assuming they had it right ;-) It might be a good idea to drop them a note about the corrections - MPF (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:DBAG 155 040-9 Worms 2009-06-26.JPGEdit

Thanks for your effort on the backlog. One thing though: I think there could be better names than this, the new one File:DBAG 155 040-9 Worms 2009-06-26.JPG is pretty much non-descriptive for anyone not knowing the different trains of the DB. How about File:DBAG Locomotive 155 040-9 in Worms, Germany.jpg? Another detail, Commons guidelines recommend lowercase file extensions, so if your already renaming a file for other reasons, feel free to change the extensions from JPG -> jpg etc. Cheers --DieBuche (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming mapsEdit

Hi! Thank you for renaming my maps! But there's no need in putting the Italian caption into the description field, because the template I use (Template:DescrMapComuneItaly) is already multilanguage. So it will vary according to the language you set in the preferences. Thank you again, bye! -- Vonvikken (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vonniken, I did not put any Italian caption in your files: I only added your template to the "light" versions of some of your files, that did not already have that template. They did have an English and an Italian description (caption). Afterwards I discovered that the English description appeared twice, so I deleted the one that was not in the template, not knowing that your template provided for versions in other languages. I'm not totally convinced of the usefulness of your template: I'd rather be able to see at once which languages are provided in the description. My mothertongue is Dutch but as I have English as my preferred language in Wikipedia, I now am unable to see whether the Dutch version of your template makes any sence at all. Some oher matter (as you can see in the next comment of Foroa) is that I will not be able to complete the task of renaming all of your maps. - Wikiklaas (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you renamed hundreds of maps to change only a small detail. This is against the rename rules and creates unnecessary work on the delinker. Therefore, I removed your rename rights. --Foroa (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I just read the discussion in Foroa's talk page. I'm happy to see that he restored your rights, sorry for the troubles I have caused to you. Now I'll talk to Foroa too, to explain him why I did those renamings and to ask him to continue with the last renamings. Thank you again, best regards! -- Vonvikken (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wikiklaas, don't worry, take your time! You've been very kind to do those renamings, I'm sorry they caused some troubles to you, but now luckily they have been solved. Thank you a lot! Bye! -- Vonvikken (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit: I talked with Foroa (see here), he found a solution, using redirects with the new names. It works, so you no longer need to do such a big work. :-) Thanks for your attention! Best regards, bye! P.S.: only now I read your previous message about the lacking of a Dutch translation in my template. That's because I don't speak Dutch, but only English, a bit of German and French and of course Italian! I would be grateful if you write me the Dutch translation for the template about comuni and both its "sister" ones, about provinces and regions. Bye! -- Vonvikken (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacing usageEdit

Hi Wikiklaas, thanks for renaming File:Northern Royal Albatross with Red-billed Gull Taiaroa Head Sept 2007.jpg to fix my own spelling mistake. However the usage wasn't replaced, so the photo was deleted from 9 pages: [1][2]

I've gone through and manually fixed them. Benchill (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete file redirects anyway. They could be used by InstantCommons or other users, which you can't see in the GlobalUsage. It also avoids problems like this. --DieBuche (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I already interrupted my activities after I appeared to not have understood some details of the commons/delinker. Before I'll continue, I'll have to study these details and discuss some things with the experts. @DieBuche: there is no concensus with respect to deleting redirects. But if I suspected the redirect to play a role in links from outside wikipedia, I did not tag them for deletion. There are however users who disagree and rather see as much redirects deleted as possible. I tend to agree with the last option, however I do my best to avoid problems as described by Benchill. Give me a few moments to learn some extra things, alright? - Wikiklaas (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your movesEdit

Please stop moving files just because you prefer English spelling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that the most friendly way you know of asking what reason another user has to contibute something to this project? If it is, I'm afraid I don't feel very much like talking to you. Sorry. B.t.w.: I undid your cropping action on the frontispiece of Hortus Cliffortianus (When I uploaded the page, I purposely included the margins) but I uploaded your cropped file as a new one: File:Linnaeus Hortus Cliffortianus frontispiece cropped.jpg. Hope you can live with that. - Wikiklaas (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I had not made a typo. And please read COM:MOVE#What files should not be renamed? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help translateEdit

Hello Wikiklaas, thanks for helping to translate the 2012 Picture of the Year contest. We still need help translating the contest interface and messages, along with reviewing existing translations. This page contains information about which pages need to be translated (please remember to take a look at all three tables on that page). Your help is really appreciated and helps make the premier competition on the world's largest collection of over 15 million freely licensed files possible.

This message was delivered by WillieBot (talk) (an approved bot) at 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC) because you participated in the 2012 POTY preparation. Click here to opt out.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Technical Barnstar
Hallo Wikiklaas,

Bedankt voor uw reactie op mijn vraag (Een foto alsnog van een categorie voorzien). Uw uitleg zie ik wel zitten, maar ondertussen houd ik me verre van wat met categorieën te maken heeft. Ene Foroa liet me weten mijn bewerkingsmogelijkheden te zullen ontnemen wegens vandaliseren. Terecht voorzeker, maar 't was wel even schrikken. In mijn leken-overmoed had ik i.v.m.die categorieën een en ander naar mijn hand willen zetten. Dus ik laat het voorlopig maar over aan het programma. Toch nog een vraagje : Als ik de categorie van een van mijn gelijkaardige bestanden kopieer en dan plak in de rubriek 'categorie' van het nieuwe bestand, doe ik dan iets ongeoorloofds ? En tevens bedankt voor het appreciëren van de afbeelding.

H. Denies Hubert DENIES (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dag Hubert, en fijn dat je mijn bijdrage op prijs stelt. Jammer dat Foroa meteen met een blok dreigt. Ja, het kan inderdaad wat werk opleveren als iemand met de categorieën "knoeit" maar het is in mijn ogen altijd beter om even te vragen wat de gebruiker wil bereiken en dan even uit te leggen hoe het moet. Dat had in dit geval ook best gekund want iemand die foto's ter beschikking stelt in verband met het "Wiki loves monuments" project is natuurlijk zeker nooit een vandaal! Je hoort daarvoor bedankt te worden en dat doe ik hierbij alsnog.
Wat betreft het knippen en plakken: nee, je doet dan niets ongeoorloofds. Kijk echter wel goed of de foto echt in dezelfde categorie thuishoort. Voor je foto van de "Collegiale" was ik begonnen te zoeken in Category:Churches in France, vervolgens van daar verder in Category:Churches in France by department, toen Category:Churches in Yonne, en daar vond ik de categorie Category:Collégiale Notre-Dame de Montréal, Yonne, de categorie waarin jouw afbeelding thuishoort. Als je het helemaal niet weet, dan is het niet erg om een foto in een hele grove categorie te plaatsen (zoals "Churches in France"). Als er in de naam van de afbeelding of in de beschrijving die je er bij geeft dan maar een goede omschrijving van de plaats of van het onderwerp staat (bij een foto van een druif bijvoorbeeld het ras, als je dat weet; ik noem maar iets), dan zet uiteindelijk iemand anders de foto wel een keer in een preciezere categorie. Het belangrijkste hier is dat je je er niet van moet laten weerhouden om foto's te uploaden omdat je niet weet hoe je de categorie moet aanpakken. Met een simpele vraag op een helpdesk is er altijd wel iemand die je wil helpen of het voor je doet. Je hebt gemerkt dat een vraag op de helpdesk van de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia voldoende was. Een volgende keer ben je weer net zo welkom. Oh, en als je mij persoonlijk wilt bereiken, dan is een vraag op mijn Nederlandse overlegpagina de snelste manier. Veel plezier nog met het uitbreiden van de fotocollectie op commons met jouw mooie afbeeldingen. Hartelijke groet, Wikiklaas (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


Hoi Wikiklaas,

Biopics en jij hartelijk dank voor alle correcties! Dat zijn de ware specialisten die voortvarend en zonder (of juist met veel) mededogen de handen uit de mouwen steken! WMF mag trots op jullie zijn.  Klaas|Z4␟V:  16:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Academiepaleis en tuin.jpgEdit

Dag Wikiklaas, zou jij eens willen zien of je de nummerplaten onherkenbaar kan maken? Ik had het eerder aan User talk:Koppchen gevraagd maar die lijkt het over het hoofd te hebben gezien, en omdat ik hier in het Nederlands terecht kan! Lotje (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wat een mazzel dat ik toevallig voor iets heel anders hier kwam. Ik zal eens kijken (is uiteraard geen probleem) maar dan moet de vorige versie daarna wel verborgen worden. Wikiklaas (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sterker nog: je verzoek is al gehonoreerd, dus alles wat overblijft is het verbergen van de oudere versie. Wikiklaas (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Dag Wikiklaas, waarom fluister je? BTW, er is nog niets gewijzigd aan de file. Lotje (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Fluister ik? Ik denk dat je even je cache moet verversen want ik zag hier vannacht al een nieuwe versie van de file, waarin de nummerborden geblurred waren. Wikiklaas (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wikiEdit

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


U heeft een foto verwijderd vanwege zogenaamd copyright terwijl deze foto een privé foto is die door zijn vriendin is genomen. Ik verzoek u dan ook deze terug te plaatsen. Bij voorbaat mijn dank SHOWJUMPING (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear SHOWJUMPING, you are new on Wikipedia, and you're not very much inclined to inform yourself about the rules and uses. In that case, it's almost unavoidable that you run into trouble sometimes. Like this time. For starters, I was not the one who deleted/removed the file. I did however find out that you copied the file from this website. The image has thus been published before, and not under a free license. It may very well be that you or Van de Pol's girlfriend are the owners of the copyright. In that case you or she will be able to provide proof that you own the original photograph, and you can release the copyright by sending an e-mail tot the OTRS-system. As long as you don't do that, your uploading of the image was a violation of the terms of service of Wikimedia. I strongly advise you te very carefully study the rules before you upload any other images, and to carefully read the statements that appear on the upload page in the process of uploading a file. You can terminate the upload process at any time if something turns out not to be in accordance with the rules. Cheers. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Epithelantha greggiiEdit

Hello, can you help me find the correct accepted scientific name (and correct Category) for which this should be redirected to? Category:Epithelantha greggii

I find the following names (except the one mentioned above) Epithelantha micromeris greggii, Epithelantha micromeris subsp. greggii, Mammillaria micromeris, Cactus micromeris, Epithelantha densispina, Epithelantha rufispina, Epithelantha spinosior.

I suspect that the current name is incorrect, and should be redirected, but I can't figure out to where, since different sources says different things. What is your opinion? Josve05a (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josve05a, first thing to mention is that there is no such thing as a "correct accepted scientific name". A scientific name depends upon the view one takes with respect to the affinities and status of a taxon, in short: its systematic position and rank. These are not facts but matters of choice.
The taxon at hand here is greggii, first published in the rank of species as Cereus greggii by George Engelmann in 1848. It was placed in the genus Epithelantha in 1926 by Charles Russell Orcutt, who also considered this a species in its own right. Other authors who considered this a good species were Nathaniel Lord Britton & Joseph Nelson Rose, who placed it in Peniocereus in 1909, William Edwin Safford, who placed it in Mammillaria in 1909, and Alberto Vojtech Frič, who placed it in Cephalomamillaria in 1925.
Some other authors however considered this to be a variety or a subspecies of the species micromeris, published as Mammillaria micromeris by Engelmann in 1856. This specific name has since been combined with other generic names by several authors. It was placed in the genus Cactus by Carl Ernst Otto Kuntze in 1891, in Echinocactus by Frédéric Albert Constantin Weber in 1898, in Epithelantha by Britton & Rose in 1922, and in Cephalomamillaria by Frič in 1925. Now there's the source for all of the names you mentioned above, except the last three ones (Epithelantha micromeris greggii and Epithelantha micromeris subsp. greggii are in fact the same, only the one with "subsp." left out is written like it were a zoological name in stead of a botanical one).
The last three names you mention are considered heterotypic synonyms of the taxon micromeris. Only if greggii would be considered a synonym of micromeris too (so not a variety or a subspecies but a synonym), would these names represent the same taxon. We can thus exclude these names from our list of choices for greggii as we consider this a separate taxon (otherwise there would be no need to discuss this at all).
If we consider greggii to be a species in its own right, and place that species in the genus Epithelantha, which indeed seems to be the genus of choice by most recent authors, then Epithelantha greggii (Engelm.) Orcutt is the only correct name.
If on the other hand, we consider greggii to be a variety or subspecies of micromeris, then the correct name firstly depends upon the combination of micromeris with a genus. So far it is highly likely that Epithelantha micomeris is the current accepted name for the species. In that case Epithelantha micomeris var. greggii (Engelm.) Y.Itô or Epithelantha micomeris subsp. greggii (Engelm.) N.P.Taylor would be the correct name, depending on the rank at subspecific or varietal level.
A short note on an element I overlooked at first. Cereus greggii was published in 1848; Mammillaria micromeris was published in 1856. If these taxa are thought to be conspecific, then greggii is the older name and takes priority over micromeris. This was obviously overlooked by several others too, as the names I cited here are from current literature but in fact contrary to the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants. This does not however affect the choice you made, so please read on....
Now let's get practical. We consider greggii to be a valid taxon, whether variety, subspecies or species, so it will need its own category. Most recent authors place this taxon within the genus Epithelantha. In that case it doesn't matter much if we call it a variety, a subspecies or a species. I think you did a good job by creating a category for it at the species level. It has been considered a good species by many authors, and your choice is defendable. Only a taxonomist with specialist knowlegde of the family or genus involved, would probably critisize the choice as being obsolete, regarding recent literature. Commons however is not a project about taxonomy. It is a repository for storing media. As long as we can find the files, it's all right. In case of doubt about specific or infraspecific level, it is even better to choose for the name as a species, because it will then turn up in the category of the genus, where everyone can find it.
One last thing: how did you come to ask me your question? Wikiklaas (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It is quite simple He asked me this question first and I told that you might be able to help since I didn't know the answer. Natuur12 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I already suspected. It's perfectly allricht off course. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm nowhere near to even call me a novice in the field of taxonomy, so I thank you for going this in-depth and explaining this to me. What threw me off were that the tool I'm using to create these cats gave multiple links to databases, with different scientific names, hence my level of confusion of which name were the right one the most accepted in the field. Perhaps the other possible names should be created to redirect to this cateogry, hmm. Thanks again for your help dechifering this! Josve05a (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you could create redirects. I think it is a wise thing to do, even after I noticed that the combination of greggii with micromeris at an infraspecific level is invalid, and should be made the other way around. As these names occur in literature, there might be users who are looking for them or linking to them. And I'll recheck te publication dates, just to be sure. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Cereus greggii was indeed published in 1848.[1] It seems to be a large plant, with branches (ramosus). In 1909, William Edwin Safford used the same name for the species Mammillaria greggii, which, according to him, is closely allied to Mammillaria micromeris of Texas.[2] There is not a single reference to Engelmann, while Safford gives ample reference for other species he cites from other authors' works. Safford shows a photograph of a young plant.[3] It is not unlikely that the taxon regarded as a subspecies or variety of micromeris is Saffords species, while the Cereus greggii of Engelmann, now often placed in the genus Peniocereus, like Britton & Rose did in 1909, is a different taxon.[4] In that case, it will be necessary to find out which one of the two taxa is depicted in the photograph now placed in this category. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard investigatory work with this species. As I previously stated, I barely know nothing about this, so this really helps. For the photography, would it be best to move it to a Unidentified foo category and leave a note on the talk page that it wan be either one of these plants, or would it be better to try to find an specialist within this familily, if someone like that exists around here, and ask him/her for an educated opinion? (ALternativly leaving a note on the Commons:Tree of Life-talkpage). Josve05a (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Mammillaria greggii of Safford is indeed a different taxon, as was made clear when Safford also mentioned Engelmanns species, on p. 553 of the same work, as Peniocereus greggii.[5] I have not seen images of the very young stages of Peniocereus greggii but this taxon and Epithelantha greggii certainly have very different flowers (see the images below). Cereus greggii is a bush while Mammillaria greggii of Safford is of the type "button cactus". It is the latter taxon that is often considered conspecific with Epithelantha micromeris, and treated as a variety of that species.
At first glance, also seeing the names as represented in IPNI, it seems likely that the two taxa bearing the same epithet have been mixed up more often. One explanation would be that the combinations of greggii in Mammillaria-like genera (including Epithelantha and Cephalomamillaria) are all based on the assumption that Saffords greggii of p. 531 is the same taxon as Engelmanns species. Another solution to this problem would be that Engelmann used the name greggii a second time (an author who uses the name of a contemporary plant collector for naming a taxon may very well do this more than once). As I only found one greggii of Engelmann at the species level, I did a search for the name at the infraspecific level. And indeed I found a second greggii of Engelmann, published in 1856 as Mammillaria micromeris var. greggii.[6] It is of course this variety that Safford was refering to when he mentioned Mammillaria greggii, whithout citing the basionym author. Also Epithelantha greggii (Engelm.) Orcutt is based upon Engelmanns variety of micromeris.
It all doesn't change much to the way this taxon should be represented on Commons. It can still be taken up in a category at species level, as has been done already, or it can be given a category at the variety level, under Epithelantha micromeris. So far, I can see no reason why things would have to be changed. Wikiklaas (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cited referencesEdit

  1. Engelmann, G. (1848). Memoir of a tour to northern Mexico: connected with Col. Doniphan's expedition in 1846 and 1847: 102.
  2. Safford, W.E. (1909). Cactaceae of northeastern and central Mexico, together with a synopsis of the principal Mexican genera. Annual report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution 1908: 531.
  3. see fig. 1, top left corner.
  4. Britton, N.L. & Rose, J.N. (1909). Contributions from the United States National Herbarium 12: 428.
  5. Safford, W.E., opus citatus: 553.
  6. Engelmann, G. (1856). Synopsis of the Cactaceae of the Territory of the United States and Adjacent Regions. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 3: 261.

File renamingEdit

@Wikiklaas:, hoe moet ik hierop reageren? Hier een file hernoemen vanwege #2 wil toch nog lang niet zeggen dat ik zomaar afbeelding vervangen en wijzigen in andermans gebruikersruimte. Betekent dit dat de door jou eerder gemaakte rename eenzelfde reactie zou hebben uitgelokt bij Moira mocht een gebruiker deze afbeelding om de een of andere reden op zijn gebruikersruimte hebben staan??? Lotje 10:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Lotje, this is something that happened on the Dutch Wikipedia. It is not appreciated if you import problems from other projects to (talk pages on) commons. You'll have to discuss this with MoiraMoira on the Dutch Wikipedia. It might help if you just explain what technically happened. Wikiklaas (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:03-EastTimor-Dive K-41 010 (School of Glass Fish)-APiazza.JPGEdit

Kan je daar een een category aan toevoegen aub? Unidentified Pempheridae? of is dit niet nodig?   Lotje (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Glassfish is a name that's commonly used for fishes in the family Ambassidae, but most likely not exclusively, as there are many species of fish that are (almost) completely transparent. Even in the Netherlands we have the glasgrondel. The problem with this image is that none of the individuals clearly shows distinctive characters as they are out of focus or much too white, the resolution of the image is very low, and the title and the description do not give any clue as to what species is depicted here. In other words: the image is utterly useless, so do not bother. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

La doctrine des moeurs (1646)Edit

Wikiklaas kan jij de files hernoemen "in one go" ? Het betreft hier wel degelijk La doctrine des moeurs en niet, zoals verkeerdelijk aangegeven :La doctrine des murs --> Commons:File renaming official guidelines --> #3 To correct obvious errors in file names, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms. Graag je mening. Lotje (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what's the wise thing to do here. The images are definitely extracted from a book that is listed as "La doctrine des murs" in the internet archive (see here) although the text on that page reads "moers". Probably the "oe" was printed as a ligature on the title page, and not recognized by OCR, but this is not an "obvious error" as it was copied from the original. Another thing is that I do have file mover rights, but I don't have or use a tool for mass renamings, so I guess you'd better ask an administrator, because this is about 90 to 100 files, and it would take me quite some time to complete this task which is moreover on a subject that I'm not acquainted with. If you ask an administrator, please don't forget to mention the misspelling in the original, as this is important for the final decision. Wikiklaas (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Actuallly, imo every file should read La doctrine des mœurs like for example: Métaphysique des mœurs. Mœurs are not the same as murs. French language is so much more than reading titles... Leaving the filenames unchanged is like raping the language of Voltaire. Lotje (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your action in NL wikiEdit

You blocked me 1 day for editwar, but obvously you overlooked the fact that an editwar always takes at least two people, so in this case you have at least to block Rode raaf too. Would you please do it? Thanks. --A.Savin 17:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Kijk eens, ik ga hier geen bewerkingsoorlog over voeren, maar verwacht geen inhoudelijke reactie van me op deze poging een probleem van elders naar hier te importeren. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I take to notice that you are too coward to discuss your sysop action on NL wiki. The only one "right" wiki to discuss it is NL wikipedia, but you know very well that I cannot discuss there due to my block. --A.Savin 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not restrict your rights to edit your own talk page there. As long as you only discuss your current block, you are free to do so. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Does it actually mean you response there? Somewhat I doubt it, as the fact that I was blocked for editwar and the other warrior was not is not standing up any criticism, but OK, I'm going to copy&paste my question there. Should the message arrive and Rode raaf receive the well deserved 1 day block too, I apologize in advance for calling you coward. --A.Savin 17:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikiklaas FYI Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  21:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Kunnen alle kinderen nu weer gewoon braaf gaan spelen in plaats van dit kinderachtig gedoe? The Banner (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Wikiklaas".