User:WayneRay/Archives04 to November 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Good to see you again[edit]

That's pretty much all I wanted to say :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, while I thought I was doing things properly, I couldn't take the criticism from Carol. WayneRay (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Hey again... just noticed someone complaining that you were removing categories. It looks like you were removing family cats from images of species, which of course a good idea, but could you add them to the species cat when you do that? The bot will just tag them as uncategorized later if there's none there.
I recently installed "hotcat" as a gadget, and it's actually quite nice. You can remove one category and add another without even going into the edit window, and it autofills for you after the first few characters making it even easier (it only autofills if there's an actual category there already, otherwise you'll need to create the category page by categorizing it in its turn within a higher taxa). Quite efficient, so it leaves more time to organize the galleries. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe , presently, that I was only removing them in the higher order Family if and only if they were already in both a species gallery and species category? If they were by themselves, I was creating species galleries and not a duplicate species category? I will see what I can do next time, thanks WayneRay (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Is this copyright violation[edit]

Is this new image on Commons a copyright infringement: Image:Merricks01.jpg? The original web site link [1] says 'All rights reserved' (ie. copyrighted) if you scroll to the bottom. What do you think? --Leoboudv (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Is this another copyright infringement: Image:Merricks002.jpg. Wonder how many others are on Commons by the contributor? --Leoboudv (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be unless the uploader is the publisher and has permission. She would have to have written permission from the artist to upload them. Best to contact her and if no response in a set time, put them up for deletion. Best way to see all her uploads is to go to her Gallery on her User page WayneRay (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
  • Thanks for the information. The images still haven't been updated and I imagine someone else would also think they were copyright violations. Regards from BC, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New pictures uploaded[edit]

Hi Wayne,

I just have uploaded 12 new pictures, 5 of rare alpine plants I met during my holiday in the French Alps, and 7 of unusual plants growing in my garden. Two of the latter are replacing former, less good pictures of Dianthus graniticus.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Campanula[edit]

Yeah, that's quite a poser :-). I think the best thing to do is to put the gallery pages into the species categories, and then have all the species galleries additionally linked to from the genus gallery (using a good (or best available) image on the genus gallery, captioned with a link to the gallery page). But yes, if there's not category yet for the species, probably best to just make one (and equally if there's no gallery, make one of those for annotation).

I do understand fully the odd effort duplication, but rather than trying to swim against the tide of mizabot -- "edit warring" (I wish there was a less bellicose word) with a bot is never a good idea -- making and monitoring the most specific (low-taxa) categories possible will help people who categorize get the image to the best place.

And Wayne, you really gotta try the Hotcat thing (in Special:Preferences under gadgets)... use it just a few times and you'll realize how it could double the efficiency even of editors who have only a light background in taxonomy :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked a riend, and he said you need to purge your browser's cache. Instructions are here, if you need help with that. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons Scope - Pdf and Djvu files[edit]

I have added some text dealing with these based on the discussion on the talk page. Users are by no means unanimous about which files should be allowed, and I have tried to follow the majority opinion. Thus, the suggestion is that if a Pdf or Djvu file is educationally useful even to a single other Wiki it should be kept. Would you like to comment before this page goes live? Please do so at the bottom of the talk page. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

a couple of things[edit]

The first thing, you may or may not understand so here I go: I paid dues to the club so whatever organization problem you are having or want, you should probably look elsewhere to have or want.

The important thing is about these templates I have been making. They are starting to work for the families I have been making them for really well. They can work on the category or the galleries, it just doesn't matter.

Only three families so far and they are not complete yet but check out this: Category:Plantae by family. Asteraceae, Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae in that list -- see the additional categories? If you were to start to use those templates when you create a gallery, the templates automatically categorize and do some really nice things. If you start to make some of these for other families, commons will start to have a very nice appearance and feel to it (to me) and uploading can be easier.

If you would like a demonstration, the links to genus that should be in any of the families I have been working with (even if the category doesn't exist yet) should tell the name of the template to use. You do already seem to know the classification for the images you are handling here -- this 'system' was designed for those who might not know it so well. Heck, I am so pleased with things the way they are starting to shape up that I thought a new taxonomy site had sprung up overnight with this new understanding I give the world, heh. Then I realized it was a site dedicated to beans -- it is, though, how cool I think this stuff is and is on its way to becoming and how it could work if there were more than one person working on it.

I would love to show it off. -- carol (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Orchid photos[edit]

Hello, WayneRay, is there the possibility, that photos of user:Hartmann are from this page: [2]? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I thought they looked too professional? Are they free to use from there? Perhaps not. WayneRay (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
I find also, the pictures are very fine and benefits for our orchid collection in commons, but I suppose, that "Hartmann" is not the author of the images in the homepage as stated above. I'll try to inform an admin, to check this by an expert. Greeeting. Orchi (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just I pictured the situation to an admin. Advice: {{copyvio}} for example: [3] ( I hope, that "Hartmann" is the author of the homepage) Orchi (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Postcard church Flin Flon Manitoba.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Postcard church Flin Flon Manitoba.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing categories again[edit]

Hi WayneRay, please dont remove relevant categories ([4] [5]) or the uncategorized template ([6] [7]). Galleries are not a replacement of categories. Multichill (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No Galleries are not a replacement for Categories, but if there is a Gallery then it does not need to have the "uncategorized template" because it has a location and that is all that is needed. Also an extra image should be in the Species Category not in the higher level Category and Species Galleries are now supposed to be linked to Species Categories if there is one and the higher level Category if there is not one already and the duplicate image is not necessary there, WayneRay (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Define the term duplicate image as being used in this explanation, please. -- carol (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The proper way to manage a duplicate image is to use the {{duplicate}} template and give it the name of the second image that is being duplicated. Removing categories does nothing to stop the duplicate image problem here. -- carol (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Semantics, not a duplicate in that sense but can appear in the Genus category, Species Category and possibly Species Gallery so three times not three duplicates etc, apologies for semantics WayneRay (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
The "semantics" makes it seem that there is atrocious waste and image duplication occurring and it makes your little or nonexistent problem seem much weightier than it really is. I would rather that you stop using those particular semantics in these discussions than apologizing for using them. It is not semantics but abuse of a terminology that already has easy solutions for when the problem actually exists. Also, the bot writers here have had their projects "go up in flames" (speaking of semantics). Any thoughts or understanding of this problem? -- carol (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, Wayne, you were vastly outvoted at Commons:Categories vs Galleries, the result of which was a change to our policy to the effect that "all media must be categorised; and galleries are only to provide a sampling of media." Last I heard, there was a push to block for disruption the people who continued to defy consensus on this point. If you get blocked, don't say you weren't warned; it will bloody well serve you right for being so intransigent. Hesperian 23:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I dropped off that message board a while back, I will leave things the way they are then. Does that mean if I see a species gallery and there isn't a species category, one should be created? Or just leave it alone. I will go look at the discussion and see what it says. WayneRay (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
I tried to discuss this here. One reason that I started here to prevent problems like this. -- carol (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked around your pages and didn't see the tools you were talking about so, yes if it helps, show me what you have WayneRay (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
I think Carol may be referring to the templates that she has been creating and adding to plant family and genus categories.[8][9] Related discussions may be found at User talk:Rocket000.[10] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The text that I wrote on at #a_couple_of_things <-- this talk page, btw, said nothing about "look at my tools". What were the words there that made you think that? -- carol (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi WayneRay, my bot tries to find the relevant category automaticly (see here). The bot does this by comparing the name of the category with the name of the gallery the image is in. If a family category gets to crowded you can just create the relevant subcategories (with the exact same names as the galleries) and add this family category to User:Multichill/Sort categories. Multichill (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
WayneRay, you seem to be removing categories again. Please stop this disruptive behaviour, this is your last warning. Multichill (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


You are gonna get blocked if you keep destroying perfectly legitimate categories.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong name?[edit]

Here? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of your question, there are east coast plants and west coast plants and Ontario mail plants???? LMPP is called London mail processing plant FYI What is your question? WayneRay (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Perhaps clearer to call them "...mail plant tags" As they stand, they sound like botanical categories! Finavon (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyclamen species[edit]

Dear Wayne,

The two pictures which were put in the Category:Cyclamen parviflorum are obviously pictures of Cyclamen coum. I have reclassified them to Category:Cyclamen coum.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have reclassified several "Unclassified cyclamen". The pics still present in this category can be tranferred in category "Cyclamen cultivars".
Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Great, that's better I think. Also I put the species galleries in the species categories instead of having both in the Genus category for simplicity and a cleaner page WayneRay (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
As you know, I have good contacts with the cyclamen specialist Mark Griffiths. He confirms my doubts about the picture which was put in the Category:Cyclamen alpinum. I have reclassified it as a variant of Cyclamen coum. I have got some nice pics of other species: the "true" Cyclamen alpinum with its "propellers", Cyclamen elegans and additional pics of Cyclamen graecum. He will provide me to pics of a "true" Cyclamen parviflorum. Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 07:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted addition of category[edit]

Hi Wayne,

I've undone (for the second time) your addition of Category:Cyanogen bromide to Category:Education Pdf files.

While the file Image:Cyanogen_bromide_reaction.pdf belongs in Category:Education Pdf files, the entire category Category:Cyanogen bromide does not.

Hope you understand.

Ben (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure I just haven't gone through and made a subcategory for science or anything in the Education Pdf files and it was to give me help in doing so. It would have also lead searchers to see that there was another whole area of scientific (etc) files in Category Pdf.Thanks anyway. WayneRay (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Photos on my user page[edit]

Hi Wayne,

I have been asked to categorize the photos I am using on my user page. After several attempts I have finally put them in the category Images of users (as you have done with the portrait on your user page). It it OK so?

Best regards from Belgium, --Réginald (To reply) 07:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect problems[edit]

Hi WayneRay. I am trying to clean up the category redirects that point to galleries as they hide the images that are in that category to the commons user. I cleaned already many hundreds of them and since a couple of weeks, I have this maintained file User:RussBot/category redirect problems that helps me monitoring it and that shows that I am nearing the end. As a lot of those redirects are in the complex species domain, where I don't have a lot of experience, I want to apologize for the mistakes I make in my attempts to put the categories in a normal operational mode. The nice thing is that my experience in the domain grows and I make less and less mistakes. Don't hesitate to point to my mistakes as I am here for learning.

I reverted the {{Populate category}} template in the Category:Canada Post east coast plants‎ only later as I noticed your warning in the edit summaries of the history only later. --Foroa (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation however I think you picked the wrong category to test things out with. Category :Canada Post Tags is the main image dump so that I organize for the galleries. The Tags have to be in Galleries not Categories as they are and will be needing labeling and organizing within the main Category. The only other one is the Miscellaneous Tags Category. There are many Commons photos that should remain in galleries and not be re populated into a Category. When you did my small project it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things, but thanks for contacting me. WayneRay (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
My message concerned mainly the categories that are redirected to galleries, which is not acceptable, and the potential damage I could have made in my attempts to repairing these category redirects. That populate "experiment" was just a standard reflex I start to have. I understand that you might need some time to organise your files and categories, but I am convinced myself that for commons management and maintenance, all images have to eventually find their place in at least one category. If you need some more time, I would suggest "to park" your images in a user category, such as "WayneRay work in progress" or "Post pre-sorting images" or so to keep the "system" happy. --Foroa (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unified page/category structure, exemple[edit]

Hello, I made the canada Post tags a complete exemple of unified page/category structure. You may study it, and decide to join in the community or go your own different way. Havang(nl) (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-reply. Didn't your realise that the fastest way to sort images from your primarily collecting category, is to recat them to smaller categories; and in one catscan you make from the smaller category the related gallery as with one catfromgallery process you make from the page the related category. The system semi-crystallises to a 1:1 two-way form of stable structure, which serves also sytematic interwiki linking. Give it a longer thought and you will discover the advantages. It is standard in many cat-trees. What I did, is to show you an exemple. (Of course the detailed position of the items in my exemple need your knowledge). The system has already proved to permit item-handling in automatisised processes in big numbers. So there is much to win and nothing to loose. Greetings Havang(nl) (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok I see but I feel this type of thing is better suited for the botanical images. However since it keeps reverting to the additional Category system you are using, Can the extras go into the Category:Miscellaneous section, The images are in galleries and labeled or to be labeled and the Galleries are in the Categories. The stuff you are doing is redundant and duplicative to me but I will leave it and clean up what I can. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Thanks. It really is helpful for improving the structure, and it reduces work, even if there is some redundancy at the bottom level. However, the pages have a function different from the categorys. And one has no garantee that pages are well-maintained. I did not read this message at the moment I have put the following at Image:Canada Post Tag0159.jpg: Use Category:London Mail Processing Plant as a temporary category, till you have chosen an appropriate category. Otherwise, a bot will tag it as uncategorised. Try however, to keep a correspondence between galleries and categories, if not in a 1:1 pagegallery-to-cat relationship, at least in a 1:1 subpagegallery-to-cat relationship. Of coarse, you may use another suitable temporary category as well. (category moves and page renamings are always possible, that guarantees the flexibility of the system, too). PS. In 3 weeks 22.000 images have been categorized by bot now, a major performance. . Greetings. Havang(nl) (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I have placed most duplicate images in Category:Canada Post Miscellaneous Tags WayneRay (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
That's one possible temporary cat and oké. However, it has an advantage to let gallery-connected items sorted together in a separate category, as a bot can change the cat to a suitably named cat, related to the gallery name. An exemple: there are only tag-images in London Mail Processing Plant, so a better name could be (exemple) Category:Tags from London Mail Processing Plant. Tag it with move, and a bot will do the job for all ca. 100 tag-images. Also, may-be you have the intention to put later building-images and postmaster-images there. Then, you must have moved beforehand [:Category:London Mail Processing plant]]. This recatting done, jou restore [:Category:London Mail Processing plant]] (easy to do) and you put the new subcategories (Category:Buildings of..., Category:Postmasters of...) together with the Category:Tags from London Mail Processing Plant in this category. From the new subcategories you make a catscan for the images to list in a subgallery of the page. This reduces greatly the amount of work. NB. Categories are not duplicates of images, they are sorting aids and transmitting tools (see catscan possibilities: one can ask for titles, images or categories; and even do crosscatscans). For instance: I made in ten minutes this gallery from the related category using catscan: Population pyramids of municipalities of the Netherlands. Greetings. Havang(nl) (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi Wayne,

I have begun to get the Category "Crocus" in order.

This is a long work, because there are a lot of pictures and many of them were / are still wrongly classified. I have not yet finished doing it.

I have emptied some obsolete categories and reclassified their pictures.

Many pictures in the catagory "Crocus vernus" were large-flower cultivars of Crocus vernus and Crocus flavus. They are not put in category "Crocus cultivars". NB: Most of the pictures of the category "Unindentified crocus" could also be reclassified in category "Crocus cultivars".

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 14:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bas2005.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bas2005.jpg. This image 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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. MBisanz talk 07:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited and as I created the book cover from my own materials or found materials and or from the authors manuscript I don't need permission because it is from myself to myself and is now given to public domain. WayneRay (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Edit war against a bot?[edit]

Are you making a edit war against a bot categorising images??? Havang(nl) (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NO I am not, the galleries I set up are such that most all of the images have to have or will have labels, the purpose of the Gallery or article is lost totally if there is a Category full of identical images before one gets to the Gallery. What's the bloody point of making an organized labelled Gallery if it is overshadowed and ruined by having up to hundreds of unorganized images placed there as well. WayneRay (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
But I just sorted out the uncategorised images on page measured seeds by temporarely moving them to Category:seeds, to give them one move from Category:Seeds to the final plant category. Now they are on your contribution list and you are now in the best position to give them the required plant categories, otherwise, the bot comes starting the process over again. Good luck in cooperating. Havang(nl) (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
OK Can I explain my rationalle. I (think I did?) created the Category Seeds or at least did the initial finding and sorting of most of the subcategories and galleries in Seeds. It is really only a repository of images that are not Categorized or placed in Galleries. Measured Seeds is a LABELLED gallery just like SEED. if you throw all the measured seeds and all the seed images back into Category:Seeds it defeats the whole purpose of clean and clear organizing and you end up with the originall 1000 + images I started with when I began the project two years ago. Also if you will notice, all the images that don't go in measured seeds or individual categories and galleries are all going into the Gallery Seed (not seeds) WayneRay (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Yes, I understand you have a prejugé against categories. But will you do now what I asked you: categorise in plant categories those images on your contribution list you uncategorised at seeds? Havang(nl) (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, can you give me an example I really don't understand what you mean in that last sentence, it would be appreciated . Do you mean create a Category for every Gallery that is in Seeds?? or Category:Measured seeds and put the gallery in there?WayneRay (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
I sorted out by automatic process all images without category from the page Measured seeds and intended to move these images with hotcat from Category:seeds to the plant=biospecies category as I did already for Image:Veitchia merrellii Graines.jpg (see history), Image:Solanum citrullifolium seeds.jpg and some others. You removed this temporary preselect-category from the images, so I could not use the preselection for these moves. I found the images on your contribution page; so it should be a gentlemans of you to add yet for me the plant categories at the images you uncategorised. It may learn you in the same time to appreciate the usefullness of automatisation in handling categories, which in turn are the best preparation to form galleries. Don't make a gallery-category war, make a gallery-category marriage! Havang(nl) (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Two further comments:
  • The categorizing process has uncategorised images as input. Uncategorising an image puts it back on the input side - a contraproductif edit loop, ultimately an edit war.
  • A postmaster should understand that images are send to the right adresses by their category labels. Select and sort: Thanks to all users who have given images parent-category labels, one is able to label them with lower categories and subsequently bottom categories (category refinement). The refined category links to the right page, so this page can be filled gradually by incoming images. In this process one keeps intact the refined category labels to avoid repeated cat-processing and to garantee other moves. Havang(nl) (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok I think I see what you are saying so I will try and comply from now on, sorry for the unintentional edit war with a Bot. WayneRay (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Thanks! Havang(nl) (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi WayneRay,
are you aware that the wording in the permission entry of Image:Cpa03.jpg is not at all equivalent to a PD license? If the cover is copyrighted, and it is IMHO, then something like to post an image of the front cover of The Sugar Bowl Cafe in the context of an article about the Shaunt Basmajian Chapbook Award on may be enough to upload it to :en, but probably not here on Commons. I would therefore recommend to ask Mr. Blades for a broader permission, for example to put it under a CC-BY license, or move it to :en. If you take the permission way, instead of pasting the answer text into the image description, I recommend to use the permission template on Commons:Email templates and send it to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Category-gallery war becomes ridiculous[edit]

Youe category-gallery war is becoming ridiculous. Categories are not duplicates from galleries: both have their specific functions. See f.i. Ernest Harmon Air Force Base and ‎ Category:Ernest Harmon Air Force Base‎. Havang(nl) (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a war thing, what is the point of creating a labeled gallery where now there is a Category with the same 30-40 photos in it?? The photos are labeled so it all says the same thing. I created the gallery so I should be able to decide if it's now useful or not and I say not. Leave the Category. WayneRay (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Wow that's 100% improvement, if I had known about the no gallery feature I wouldn't have been so disillusioned and upset. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
The nogallery thing proves the difference between cat and gal. But one should use it mostly in the show preview mode, as people prefere choosing after haviong seen the images shown. I have asked for a button show gallery/show list, but that doesn't work quite well. So be aware that galleries and images really are complementary. There are a lot of gadgets for categories, which don't workj for pages, but pages may show the better legends. So keep them both please. Havang(nl) (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again, stop making images uncategorised. Every image should have a category, your opinion that a gallery is the same thing is just that and no more! To be frank, I view this as hostile editing that attempts to draw in contributors with legitimately categorised images. I don't care what some bot did a couple of years ago, nor to see your over-reaction to that. If you want to make a point, find some way other than degrading the contributions of those who would not agree with you. I find it very frustrating to find that my images can't be found because I haven't thought to remind you about this lately. If a category becomes too large, diffuse it to finer categories. Galleries have a number of uses, but not as a substitute for the often larger categories:
Categories are not made obsolete by galleries. Every image in a gallery should be categorised, one of the same name if no other. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about here, I have only been working on August 1st and August 2nd Images that need categories. The Bot is the one that is going on right now and does something called Populate Category. I thought I have been leaving things alone? If some new image has no link I put it in a gallery if it exists and a category if it need be, so now you want me to put new images in category instead of a gallery, sorry I thought I was doing the right things WayneRay (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Are you feigning ignorance, I could not be more clear. You want to substitute gallery for a category "... if it need be". I have not suggested the reverse, I have stated: Every image in a gallery should be categorised. Your attempt to veer this discussion away by asserting I want cats instead of galleries is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la, la, la". You are pushing a personal POV, if not some form of elaborate trolling, and continuing to remove categories like this 22 October 2008 which I noticed was fixed by a bot yesterday. Quit it! Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The example you gave me is wrong as the image is already in Category:Nature printing which in turn is linked to Category:Botanical illustrations so it is already in a Category and is not needed in illustrations. That is why it was removed as a duplicate WayneRay (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
The example is precise, how do you explain the next edit? Answer this question and then we can discuss how my later edit can be improved. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The Bot is wrong as it is already in aCategory, I give up, I have other things to do WayneRay (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
The bot was not wrong, it detects when you empty categories or delete them from images, but it fails to alert contributors what you have done. I wont be posting on this again, at least not here, I will revert any detrimental edit from this account without warning. It is regretable that you have taken this path. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Wayne,

I am aware that some of the pictures are indeed somewhat fuzzy. The blooming period of the fall crocus is quite short and the weather is currently changeable, quite dark and very windy. If possible, I will try to get better pictures to replace the fuzzy ones. Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 07:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wayne,
I have removed the content of the obsolete category and the multimedia "Crocus aureus" and put their content in the (correct) category and the multimedia "Crocus flavus". Is it possible to delete the emptied category and the multimedia "Crocus aureus"? Thanks, --Réginald (To reply) 13:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wayne,
Yesterday it was sunny and there was no wind. Fortunately there was still one Crocus speciosus 'Artabir' in flower. I Will now replace the fuzzy pictures of it. Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 20:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: I have also replaced the pictures of Galanthus reginae-olgae -the rare autum-flowering snowdrop- from which I have got 10 years ago 5 bulbs from a galanthophile (who unfortunately deceased in the meantime from cancer). I have also added pics of Crocus cartwrightianus 'Albus' and lower-resolution pictures (taken 5 years ago with a lesser camera) of the rare Colchicum alpinum. --Réginald (To reply) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Narcissus eugeniae[edit]

{{speedy delete|obsolete category}}

--Réginald (To reply) 09:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Narcissus hispanicus[edit]

{{speedy delete|obsolete category}} --Réginald (To reply) 09:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems to be working by the time I saw this they were showing in red color so congratulations it is easier than it looks WayneRay (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Rare bulbs[edit]

Hi Wayne,

Some of my rare bulbs were obtained by sowing or exchange with bulb freaks.

Some others I have bought at specialists in Holland:

I am now waiting for the next fall crocusses: Crocus niveus (already in bud) and Crocus goulimyi (already in leaves).
In December I will hopefully have blooming Crocus niveus and Crocus laevigatus 'Fontenayi'.
I have lost some others fall crocusses(probably devoured by fieldmice): Crocus boryi, Crocus tournefortii and the rare Crocus mathewii.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 08:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict between versions[edit]

Hi Wayne.

Yesterday I uploaded a new version of the portrait "Image:Meneerke bloem (portrait).jpg" I amusing for my user pages. In some of my pages (FR and NL wikipedia, despite of a refresh the old version is still appearing. For this reason I uploaded it again as "Image:Meneerke bloem (portrait)1.jpg".

Is is possible to remove the updated version of "Image:Meneerke bloem (portrait).jpg"?

Thanks again for your appreciated help. --Réginald (To reply) 12:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, thanks for your appreciated help. Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006."[edit]

...das war nicht dein Ernst, oder?! Gibts noch mehr Seiten von der Sorte von dir?? Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 14:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Subsp. muñozii-garmendiae[edit]

{{speedy delete|category created by mistake}}

see my answer in User talk:Cillas

--Réginald (To reply) 08:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Narcissus ×perezlarae[edit]

{{speedy delete|category created by mistake}}

Reason: to avoid conflict with User:Cillas. See his message of in my user talk.

--Réginald (To reply) 09:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PDF tagging[edit]

Hi - I've removed your tag on this one. I'm not saying it is within scope however it is not a Web site one page text advertizement as you stated. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right I have a stencil and forgot to remove some words, I meant it wqas just a webpage of some kind, thaqnks WayneRay (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay