User talk:CarolSpears

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

Archives[edit]


Huffman code[edit]

Hi, you asked about the corrupted file I uploaded. I didn't make it, my camera did, probably because I turned off the camera while it was still saving the file. I found it while I was transferring photos from the camera onto my computer and I thought Wikimedia Commons could use it, as it was of no use to me. I'm glad that you used it, and it is new to Commons: I took the photo July 1st, as it says on the file's Metadata.

JPEG Corruption.jpg

--Codell (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised to see that it had been uploaded so recently. On July 2nd I combed through the recent uploads for several pages, into the July 1st uploads. I found that image in its category while looking to see if anyone had uploaded a movie player image of a blank hard drive (which I think I have seen before). It looked like it had been there in the proper category forever for two reasons I think. One of those reasons is that broken image files are not so common as they used to be, as the libraries are debugged. The other reason is that it really belongs where I found it.
The question about making it with a hex-editor was a serious question. As of version 2.6 GIMP saves jpegs at the original quality -- getting the original quality setting from the file was kind of a software miracle (if I understand the situation correctly) and it was said that it could not be done. He did this by looking at jpeg data, not drawn jpegs -- by looking at a lot of them. And certainly Photoshops will be able to do this as the protected source software people can just read how it was done. The unprotected source software people have to guess, sometimes guess wrong and occasionally are able to perform miracles like this one.
That particular developer was much more capable of performing software miracles than he was at managing a silly web site project.
So, I wondered if the file had been edited with a specific part of the data removed to make that particular information incomplete. It should be possible and I say this having never actually used a hex editor or looked at jpeg data for any reason other than accidental.
That file should be extremely useful for anyone writing jpeg loading software. I would have added it to the jpeg wikipedia page and to the Huffman encoding page if it were not for the abuse of administrative powers there and the fact that I am not a little animal who is trained to jump through hoops and fetch and whatever. It is not an environment made for knowledgeable members of my species.
In summary, that was not only a cool upload but perhaps extremely useful for a certain group of people who need a known broken image. I am left sitting here trying to think about getting my failing camera to make such broken images and I think that being able to purposely turn the camera off before an image is saved is highly improbable.
I wonder how that image would fare at FPC....
It was a great upload. Respectfully, carol (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I certainly didn't expect that uploading a corrupt image that I found on my camera would be so useful! It's good that this is the case.
I don't know how to use a hex editor, and I don't use GIMP or Photoshop; it was purely done by my camera. I believe that my camera has done this once in the past, and at least one other time has produced an image that was normal on the top third and grey the rest of the way down (like on [1]). Maybe my model (R607) is susceptible to such corruptions. I also noticed that the filesize of the corrupted image, 4.72MB, is much larger than the normal photo filesize that it produces, 900KB–1.6MB. --Codell (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting photo error and agree with Carol on the image's usefulness (Have to say it would be an awesome FPC since it is educational)! Carol or Codell, could you double check that I've got File:Faulty CCD.jpg and File:Faulty CCD 1.jpg correct? Bidgee (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea of ways to check for faulty CCD or what to look for. The broken JPG file was identified by GIMP, probably via libjpeg62. Codell's image was saved before the jpeg was completely created -- the end of a table is missing (I think). GIMP considers both of your files to be proper jpegs.
It certainly does look to me like a failing camera. Information is missed (or not being collected) at regular intervals. Non-digital cameras are more comprehensive to me (perhaps) to determine what is wrong with the apparatus. I regret that I skipped out of and then never re-took optics lab in college. -- (an unending self-discipline problem) carol (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Strasburger (continued)[edit]

Well, I looked at it in a little more depth, but what is stated at the spot you referred to did not get the promised follow-up at all. The German Wikipedia still uses the same unique system, with unique taxa such as Rosopsida (sensu German Wikipedia) and Liliideae (sensu German Wikipedia). These are nothing like APG II or the system used by the APWebsite. It is of course up to the German Wikipedia what system they use, although some of the taxa are really terrible from a scientific point of view. However, these taxa are imported into Commons as categories, and this is very confusing to the reader: Liliidae (sensu German Wikipedia) is nothing like Liliideae (sensu Cronquist); Rosidae (sensu German Wikipedia) is nothing like Rosidae (sensu Cronquist) and Rosopsida (sensu German Wikipedia) is nothing like Rosopsida (sensu Polish Wikipedia). In my view the optimal solution would be to have categories according to a single system (either APG II or APWebsite) supplemented by taxonavigation for multiple sytems. I am quite dubious if this can be achieved.

        However, if there are to be categories following different systems then it looks inescapable to me to also have the various taxonavigations by various systems. The primary thing to aim for is to at least be honest about what classification is being used, rather than to assume that everybody will just know, understand and follow the system on the German Wikipedia as being self-evident. - Brya (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Things that I did not understand when I started to make those templates:
  1. that a dedicated and thoughtfully collected scrapbook can share the name herbarium equally with a building that stores a living collection.
  2. that "official" is not clearly defined for classification systems.
  3. that not being accessible online is a big problem (perhaps the kind of problem that creates the classification that is being used at de.wikipedia, which you give a "recipe" for but is actually just scooped from GRIN). That you acquired a book makes you an expert? Consider this carefully before agreeing that this is the case.
Here at the commons it doesn't take long to discover that the whole classification tree is impossible for one person to maintain or to understand. Even just the plantae branch. Also that there are "gallery squatters" who watch some galleries who have strong opinions about which classification scheme is used -- it would be nice if they would continue to squat only on the galleries and ignore the categories but nice behavior has seemingly been discarded in lieu of nice talk page type.
As it stands right now, I am communicating with a person who did not want credit for introducing that classification system who then in less than 24 hours decided to take the credit for it. It is a situation which I am not very happy with. It resembles the situation with the user who got his cred by writing some very good software who now does not write software.
Another situation is this: that the mention of Strasburger can be removed from here (the commons) easily with software. Adding it back into the templates cannot be done with software. Any template which I authored which has that classification system still in it -- it should be changed to GRIN as that is what de.wikipedia uses and I used de.wikipedia (and not your book) to make it.
I will do things manually until I understand how software could reliably accomplish the same task. I understand the problems I may have created when I used a web site different than the APG study group site to make the non-APG II taxonomy that is in the templates. I no longer expect the ability of the anonymous internet to be able to have the same understanding or ability to admit it. It is a maturity point which I expect will not be achievable. (See my problem with the user Brya claiming to not have done this and that turn in the claim less than 24 hours later).
I will not add the Strasburger stuff to the templates. It is a lot of work. I don't have that book. It is probably not being used at de.wikipedia (GRIN is). If you want it there, I suggest that you get your book out and use the history of the templates that are there to do this task. It is not easy and it is often mind-numbingly repetitive work. For me, the idea that it would be another first for the internet (non-gross firsts are kind of rare now?) helped me to complete what I completed here.
Evidence that the ToL is capable of understanding what an "internet first" is and how that is simply and completely one of the main goals of this wiki, the ability of the wiki-interface to accomplish a great thing like this and the ability to do anything other than gallery squat and paste templates that point to galleries which have already been pointed at is not available -- perhaps because it does not exist.
The "bot writer" told me to stop bitching (and was not blocked for being rude and for having a lower intelligence level than advertised) and pointed me to what is probably the best example of his current authoring skills https://fisheye.toolserver.org/browse/multichill/bot/sort/sort_TOL_category.py <-- installing a python template.
Should you actually decide to add that stuff to the templates, I will be available to assist you and point to specific templates which have examples of how to manage the problems.
I am not anxious to re-introduce a classification system which is not available online and not used by any wikipedia here; I would rather that software remove it or me when I am doing other things and encounter that family. Please consider this. I too own books that have interesting information, but it also is stuff that is not published online and I don't think that that information belongs here yet.
Do you think that an anonymous internet can ever be expected to reflect a maturing similar to that of the species which makes it communicate and causes actions and changes where it resides? -- carol (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi carol, I can see that you are upset. I am not sure what you are upset about, but quite willing to understand that there are plenty of things here at Commons that can upset any person. I do see that you are very active here and have done a very great deal of work. Personally I am not very involved with Commons, other than seeing that it is a fast developing resource. All I am trying to do is keeping things that touch on the Angiosperms as straightforward and accessible as possible.
        As to systems of plant classifications, this is an issue that can be terribly complex or relatively simple. Indeed there is no such thing as an official system. It is more or less automatic that there cannot be, by the nature of things. If a system of classification is succesful it will be adopted by others, who will then modify it to their personal views, which introduces variation. A further complicating factor is naming, which can be very confusing (see above).
        A very succesful system for decades was that by Cronquist of which there exist three versions published by Cronquist himself (1968, 1981, 1988). The French and Dutch Wikipedias present the 1981 version (which is the big book, over two inches thick). The Portugese Wikipedia (I did not check this personally, but on the face of it this looks accurate) adds the 1988 version (which is more or less a summary, probably not than an inch in thickness). There are several www-resources that use a version of Cronquist, such as USDA Plants, ITIS, Catalogue of Life, some parts of TROPICOS. What exact version they use is unclear to me, but especially ITIS looks somewhat iffy, with personal views not rare.
pt.wikipedia grabbed the lists from delta-inkey. They have article stubs for delta-inkey miss-spelled genus names. -- carol (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        A more modern system of plant classification that is very succesful is by, roughly called, APG (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group}, which is a group of scientists. This group of scientists is not quite stable and they do not internally agree on everything. There are two papers which were "officially" published by APG, namely in 1998 (APG or 'APG I') and 2003 (APG II). An APG III has been announced but it has not been published. Presumably it will be very close to what is on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (which is neither "official", nor stable). In addition there are a number of textbooks explaining the system, but none of these books exactly follow either the 1998 or 2003 system. Some other websites follow some version of APG, such as ToL, NCBI, your UniProt.
        ARS-GRIN does not follow any classification at all, in that it does not use any rank higher than family. Instead it refers to a numer of other websites (ranging from the 1998 APG to the APWebsite); see for example the page for Rubiaceae, linking to Flowering Plant Gateway with the 1998 APG.
        There is a further complicating factor here in that APG uses formal ranks (in the sense of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) only for orders and families. All the higher grops are indicated by clade names (monocots, commelinids, eudicots, asterids, etc). This is not all uncommon in Botany (likely even the normal way of doing things, historically), but apparently this is highly disturbing to those who grew up with Cronquist (or are the product of the American system of schooling?), which leads to their thinking up their own plant groups and naming them on their own initiative. The resulting home-grown plant groups can get very confusing, as in the case of the German Wikipedia (and no I did not make up anything except for attaching the name "Strasburger" to this system, which looks like a mild stretch as they base their system on a book, commonly known as Strasburger).
        So, there is a very straightforward solution. This is to follow APG II (2003), which is a single publication (stable), and which is deferred to by everybody, even if they do not agree with it. Otherwise there are any number of systems, each of which will have its adherents, who feel it is superior, leading to an endless discussion. A less straightforward solution is to follow the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, which admittedly is not stable, but is highly visible and has lots of followers. - Brya (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Not upset. Perhaps what you see is what I should be in the report of my experiences here -- but I am not upset. The fact is that I am communicating with a user who claimed no responsibility for something and changed their story less than 24 hours later. It is not as upsetting as it is eh, (do not be offended) comical in perhaps a "not so funny for the person doing this" kind of way. That you persist with this does not upset me.
The templates are Cronquist, APGII and something else (Uniprot is sequencing samples and then classifying, if this makes a difference to others or not -- I fail to see any difference between setting the circumscription lines between stamen counts or some sequencing thingies -- all it is is smaller).
My warnings/suggestions that you consider the amount of work that is involved to transfer the contents of your book to the templates was also not me being upset. That was actually me asking you to consider the amount of work that is involved to transfer the contents of your book here and how the wikipedia that is supposed to be using it is actually following GRIN -- if I need to not be technical -- the way GRIN has linked and named things on their web site (the word "classification" has been avoided as to not upset you).
Perhaps your feeling that I am upset about a bot writer who does not write bots and is easily frightened after months of not writing bots and being rude to others is because you think that you would be upset if you were in my place. I honestly find it more interesting to see how long it takes before a bot can be written. I want it to take a long long time, heh. The anonymous internet suddenly showing an ability to mature and accomplish simple tasks would ruin whatever fun I have watching users here.
The fact that I met a person from that country and from several others makes the "users from other countries" who are here now so entertaining and eh, so shallow and small. They must be characters from the imaginations of people very unexperienced with real life. I am grateful that when I was that ignorant and inexperienced that I was not able to play pretend on the internet like that -- surely I might have.
How about if I just tell you when I am upset and you never guess about my mood? Instead, your task to to know that what I have told you here -- as idiotic and pathetic as it appears -- is the fact of how things have worked here and tell me how you propose to move the contents of your book into the templates and if making the contents of the plant articles at de.wikipedia not be scooped from GRIN would be in the interest of any user enough to change them all?
In turn, I will promise not to tell you when you are upset and instead rely upon your ability to communicate when and why for that? I certainly would probably say that you were obviously "something else" and that might surely offend you. Best to let you express your own mood and me express mine. Easiest also. -- carol (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, I am assuming that you are upset because I see you referring to past incidents and repeating your points, without being particularly clear. One of the points you repeat are your experiences with Multichill; I do not know what happened, or who exactly did what. I am not very much into bots; I suppose these can be useful, if properly written, but they can be pests too. All I know of Multichill's bot is that it is putting in notices in articles that there are pictures available at Commons whenever there is a category here (at Commons), even if it is empty. That did not strike me as being a particularly good idea.
        You are also referring to a book that I intend "to move the contents of [...] into the templates", which is also a slight mystery, unless you are referring to Cronquist's 1981 book: but this has already been moved into the templates by others, so I am not even proposing doing that.
        As to the relationship you suppose to exist between the German Wikipedia and GRIN, this too mystifies me. As I pointed out above, ARS-GRIN itself does not contain a classification. On the other hand the German Wikipedia does present a classification, presented here:
"Die hier wiedergegebene Systematik der Bedecktsamigen Pflanzen gilt in der Wikipedia als Referenz; dies betrifft insbesondere die Einträge in Taxoboxen.
Die hier dargestellte Systematik der Bedecktsamer orientiert sich an der Systematik der Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II. Die Systematik gibt als stabile Version die in der 36. Auflage des Strasburger – Lehrbuch der Botanik dargestellte System nach APG II mit den Änderungen von P. F. Stevens[1] bis zur Drucklegung wieder. Die deutschen Bezeichnungen für die Gruppen oberhalb der Ordnungsebene folgen Strasburger. "
    with a rough translation going:
    "The Classfication of Angiosperms presented here is accounted to be the Standard for this Wikipedia; especially in taxoboxes.
    The Classfication of Angiosperms presented here is oriented on the APG II classification. This Classification uses as its stable version the 36th Edition of the Strasburger – Lehrbuch der Botanik, following APG II, with the changes by P. F. Stevens incorporated up to the point of going to press. The German names of the groups above the level of order follow Strasburger. "
    So, I do not follow at all why you suppose that there is a relationship between the German Wikipedia and GRIN? - Brya (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    I am unable to read the words that are in your book to see if you report them accurately. You are able to check everything I say (and have proven that you are capable of correcting my taxo-grammar) since I only looked at online sources when I made those templates.

    You also found some mistakes and repaired them, thank you for that.

    I fail to understand what we are discussing recently. If you doubt that de.wikipedia genus and species reflect what is at GRIN -- you should be capable of verifying your beliefs by looking at what is at GRIN and what is at de.wikipedia. Arguing this point with me is a waste of my talk page and time.

    If at any point I try to tell you that you did not read the words in your book, please tell me that I am wasting your time. To me, this text here -- this exchange is you telling me that I did not see what I saw and I am curious if this is your intended message to me.... -- carol (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I see we have a very basic failure at communication.
    • As I indicated previously, I have not the lest idea what you mean by "my book", let alone "the words" in them.
    These are your words: "Hi, well it is an actual classifaction system, in as far that it is contained in an actual book. " -- carol (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, that book. I have not seen it either, but the German Wikipedia treats it as gospel. I wish they would not, but I cannot stop them. Certainly it is not "my book"". - Brya (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I also do not see any correspondence between ARS-GRIN and the German Wikipedia :
      1. Nymphaeaceae in German Wikipedia, assigned to the Nymphaeidae, in the Magnoliopsida, and in ARS-GRIN, accepted as a "dicot family".
      2. Liliaceae in the German Wikipedia, assigned to the Liliidae, in the Liliopsida, and in the ARS-GRIN, accepted as a "monocot family".
      3. Rhamnaceae in the German Wikipedia, assigned to the Rosidae, in the Rosopsida, and in ARS-GRIN, accepted as a "dicot family".
    I spent several months attempting to incorporate the Strasburger classification into the templates I was making. I do not have a book about this, there is no comprehensive (I think this is the word that is used to describe a complete information set which is logically presented -- if I misuse this word, I misuse it by assigning that meaning to it) information regarding it online. It was actually from a personal era here in which I felt I could determine the difference between reliable information from else where via the internet but did not question the information from the contributors here. It was my mistake and I apologize for this. I really should have questioned the information from the contributors here. Back to the point I was making:
    I used (wrongfully as you have clearly pointed out to me) de.wikipedia for all things Strasburger and spent a lot of time -- months and months of time -- viewing the taxonomy articles there. Mostly of plant families and looking at what genera de.wikipedia included into their families, subfamilies, etc. This information 49 out of 50 times completely reflected the presentation of the families, subfamilies, etc. from GRIN. If this is no longer the case, then good for de.wikipedia. But of the hundreds and hundreds of families I looked at there and then, 49 out of 50 of them completely reflected the information that was at GRIN. You either believe my experience with this or not. You will not be able to change my experience from that time. Telling me that I did not see what I saw is a waste of my time. I would be curious to know any reason it is not a waste of your time. -- carol (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    There is a difference between a System, which establishes the relationships between the main groups, and the placement of genera and species. "Comprehensive systems" (that do both at the same time) are vanishingly few (perhaps four or five over the past 250 years?), and only if you to take it not too strictly (there are almost certainly to be unplaced genera and species). The policy at the German Wikipedia is to use the Strasburger book for its system and the APWebsite for the placement of orders and below. As you undoubtedly know the APWebsite is not "comprehensive" either: it deals with orders, families, subfamilies, and only sometimes genera and species. ARS-GRIN deals only with families and below; they do not appear to make a statement what exactly they follow (almost certainly not any single source), but obviously they operate closely in parallel with the APWebsite. I do not know how closely the German Wikipedia follows either the APWebsite or ARS-GRIN, a random sample I took showed them using yet a third source. I pretty much hate the entire approach: I would be very much in favor of always stating whose views are represented, rather than deal with the unstated assumption that the Wikipedia-writer has had a personal revelation by God on what is the correct classification. - Brya (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is a problem that not all sources are online, but it looks to me that this should lead to the reverse approach: if there is no reliable online information it is better to just be silent on the topic rather than make up something (or copy a database that just made stuff up). Anyway, the problem is more serious than that. Much information is not only not online, but just does not exist (taxonomy is badly underfunded and has been for decades).
    The templates are kind of neat and are capable of managing changes quickly and when used with software (some of the members of the ToL are waiting for the men with those new-fangled horse drawn carts containing the gutenberg printing machines to appear so that they can mentally begin to evolve and understand eventually what well written software can and cannot do). It is, in my humble opinion, something that the wiki-interface is actually good for. Perhaps superior to any other web page rendering software. I am a bit of a snob about software. I really think that too many eh "wrappers" is a problem with software. The wiki interface makes it easy for many to contribute but it also seems to make it easy for people who don't know anything and are not willing to learn about it make decisions which make them have the appearance of being trapped in the 13th century. Those templates make it easy to quickly reflect changes in taxonomy and I put the hypothetical new classification system in them with this idea of "using the software to manage the information" as a goal. Once the templates are in place, it should be somewhat easy to repair any mistakes or show the changing information for all members of that family, subfamily, genus, etc. It is also my opinion that the templates cannot be reliably made with software but they can be repaired.
    • I thank you for your trust in my ability of deciphering and correcting your taxo-grammar, although I am unsure if I share it: i found it hard going (I certainly hope it is efficient as it is not all that user-friendly). - Brya (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    There are some ideology about management of the images here which is left over from (perhaps well thoughtout) ideas about managing articles at english wikipedia. The big difference between the 'pedias and this wiki is that the contents there are authored and the contents here are mostly uploaded. It is a really big difference if you take a few moments to think about it. My goal was not to discuss which classification but to show the main two and a future classification which reflects the genetic sequencing and then to use software to create every category through genus.
    The templates show when a category needs images which should be helpful to photographers who are interested in uploading images which the commons needs, not just another pretty photograph of a rose cultivar (or whatever). When the category exists, then the uploading software might suggest it (depending on how well those softwares were written) but will not suggest it if it does not exist. There should be no reason to not make the different taxonomy trees through genus here other than "that is not how it is done at English Wikipedia" a site which hosts content that is authored right there and has a mostly terrible management of uploaded information....
    Once again, and let me clearly state this: if you are interested in having the Strasburger information here then you have a lot of work ahead of you. If you are interested in being credited for the introduction of this here, you should decide if you want to have it here or remove it. I was and still am very sorry that I relied on the expertise of the not so often contributors here -- I have not had a life that makes me comfortable to be a pawn. My seeming willingness to be a pawn for other projects did not do much for those projects and it seems that it is a mistake that I made.
    If you need a pawn I can provide emails to people who seem happy to be pawns and if you would like me to add your name to that list, just let me know.
    --carol (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    (One last thought): A wiki is (for instance) a terrible way to manage software for a graphics application -- I can show you a url that clearly demonstrates this. -- carol (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    I can only repeat that I amin agreement with what you state to be your basic purposes " My goal was not to discuss which classification but to show the main two and a future classification which reflects the genetic sequencing and then to use software to create every category through genus.", although "genetic sequencing" has nothing to do with it (DNA-sequencing is better). I would be fine with using
    • only APG II
    • both APG II and Cronquist
    • and APG II and Cronquist and the APWebsite
    However, the problem is those categories of the Strasburger system, that appear to be so hard to get rid of. If those categories are present here then they should be named as such, and not just snuck in. - Brya (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    And yes, I agree that the English Wikipedia is mismanaging the available information on plants in a terrible manner; it is organized to destroy or keep out any information that does not conform to the dearly held beliefs of a limited group of users. - Brya (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I actually meant that the way articles are managed at en.wikipedia is not a good way to manage images. Articles are authored on site while images are uploaded from other sources. I don't think it was the plant project that reverted my additions to articles there and new articles that my pseudonym authored. Maybe it was, but the pseudonym was following the plant project template and communicating with them. Managing an upload stream and collection of millions of images is different than managing millions of articles and the creation of new ones. -- carol (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    My opinions about web site accessibility are much stronger than any opinions I have of taxonomic classification. When I state this, I know that I put myself into a larger group of people. The different classification systems made this task much more interesting than to have decided upon just one system and more, it was much more fun with four classifications than it was with three.
    I don't claim that my work was 100% accurate; a group of people would be able to come much closer to that goal than one person. I really appreciate that you reviewed and repaired some mistakes I made.
    It would be very nice if the Strasburger information were available online. I wouldn't mind reverting the changes made to the templates I made to re-include it again but I have no way to check it and I also have conflicting information from de.wikipedia (although, the proof is in the doing or not).
    I have tried to repeat those points that I meant to make in this long exchange. It is a nice feeling I have right now of an agreement on some of these points with you. It would be nice to get started on things again with more than the feeling I had then which was "hands off". It was a feeling I had about my work here and the feeling had some proof to it in that I was allowed to make so many templates without interference. The working together feeling is the one I miss the most these last 5 or 6 years -- I was good at that, if the goal was the stated one.
    So, this is the end of my summary, statement of sincere appreciation and a suggestion that we discuss where to go from here and how to get there. Thank you for your patience. -- carol (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. Indeed it is much more informative to work with more than one classification. These classifactions have always been transitory, with a new one always over the horizon. On the Dutch Wikipedia I have some 5-8 classifications incorporated, which makes for a handy reference (as opposed to having to deal with just a single opinion).
            As stated above, the 'Strasburger classification' is online, more or less. The basic problem is that it combines a book with a website, a website that is dynamic (over the past week I found several cases where the website has moved on, with the German Wikipedia failing to follow). In addition there apparently (as indicated by BotBln) is some shift to more closely follow the website, making for two areas of uncertainty. Conceptually (and scientifically), there is no added value in the 'Strasburger system'.
            I am not sure if your templates are a good idea, as these are not all that easy to use. Obviously, they reduce the amount of text in each entry (which in itself makes for a certain cleanliness and allow a focus on the relevant detail). What templates do with processing time on the servers I have no idea. However what is clear is that templates work best on large uniform units (big families), and work least well on isolated taxa that have different dispositions in different classifications (in such cases templates use a lot of code to do very little).
            A careful statement of goals can be quite important. I think that much of what you have done here looks quite admirable. - Brya (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    I cannot point to one single place where I know I learned that the templates were not such a great load on the system. Once rendered they can be tempermental at reflecting changes, especially the templates within templates which tells me that once rendered, they are simply web pages until either a change in the template or the addition of an image into the category.
    I was thinking that making the urls begin with a capital letter would be less of a load on the system -- I made a lot of taxo-navigation with capital letters and have absolutely no proof that my reason was valid or worth worrying about.
    That the templates can automatically manage when a genus has a shared name -- I have found cases where the genus in the plant tree was shared with a genus in the animal tree, that the templates can automatically manage common mis-spellings and accepted mis-spellings, that showing all of these taxonomies avoids those unending useless arguments (arguments which by definition do not belong here) and that the templates can be used to show here which species need images still -- these are the reasons that using the templates is better than whatever was going on before. Software could easily make changes to them (like making them to be not capitalized, for instance) -- it just needs to be written. Making the templates is not so complicated or difficult and once finished, the changes as they occur in the current definitions of things can be managed much more easily with the templates than without them.
    Those templates do not change much here other than reducing the amount of useless, boring and not belonging here discussion of which system to use and possibly to get rid of that "no empty category" rule which in my opinion begs for sloppy and random and requires the patient maintenance of people who probably did not cause the mess or the sloppiness. If the category exists then people will ususally use it. -- carol (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    As I said before I am not against templates. The strongest argument against using them is that they are difficult to understand for the non-initiate who wants to make a quick correction. And the need for corrections will be most pressing in the small taxa with a track record of being moved around a lot by taxonomists. So, templates will be of most benefit for large stable families; it will clear up a lot of code. It may well be different for classifications inside a family; in many cases there is no close agreement on those. For instance the internal classification of Leguminosae/Fabaceae is in movement, with the split into three subfamilies in the process of being abandoned in favor of four or five subfamilies. Classification inside a family looks like an area of potential trouble to me.
            I guess it makes sense to have empty categories, at least where other categories at the same level exist; that is, it makes sense for a category of an order to contain categories for all the families in that order, even if they are empty. Not so sure how far this should extend; planning to make a category for every genus could get very involved. This is different from the Wikipedias, where it is silly to come across a big banner advertising that Commons offers pictures on a topic, only to find that there is indeed a category here, but that it is empty.
            I do not understand how "templates can automatically manage when a genus has a shared name [...] that the templates can automatically manage common mis-spellings and accepted mis-spellings, " but obviously there are many generic names that are used under more than one Code of nomenclature (thousands), and even some species names. And mis-spellings are all too common. - Brya (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    Brüno[edit]

    Hi carol, you once asked me if I had ever seen "Borat". I hadn't and I still havn't, but I just saw the sequel Brüno. I usually hate this genre of movies, but quite frankly this mockumentary was so lame and insane in its flipping between fiction and real world, that I must say I was entertained to a very high degree. I just read about the movie now, and I was amazed to learn that so many of the scenes where in real-world settings. I honestly thought many of them was entirely fictitious. Anyway, if you havn't seen it, I think you should. From how I know you, I think you would be entertained as well. I am seriously considering to get to see Borat as well at some stage. --Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

    I haven't rewatched Borat -- remaining in my memory are several images from it that I am not eager to refresh. I recently discussed Brüno (I have only seen advertisements for it). My part of the discussion went like this: "if Borat was about how most people in the United States have no understanding of people from (I said middle east but was corrected) Eastern Asia then Brüno should be about how most people have no understanding of Europeans and the homosexual community." The reply was that I was correct but it was not about Europeans. In Borat I saw a little of myself (my mindset) when I was at the end of my high school years and before I spent even just a few days in my dormitory.
    Many times on this wiki, I have sensed this same mindset. Then, on sexuality. I learned about the homosexual community when I no longer lived in the dormitory and I remember being a little jealous which is not the feeling I had from the idea I had of this group when I was in high school.
    Strong opinions of things are usually occurring when there are people with a lot of experience with something and when there are people with no experience with that same thing. It is fairly easy to tell which kind of person it is with the strong opinion. I am not certain I will see much of that idea when I see the movie, but it is something I thought about when I saw Borat.
    I am kind of glad you got back to me with this. More about movies: one of the most difficult questions I have been asked lately is which is my favorite Pixar movie. UP! is the favorite. Unfortunately they had a trailer for Toy Story III and I thought that there should be a humane society for movies who would intervene when the industry is found to be beating what might have once been a good story to death. Second, third, fourth and other is very difficult to assign. UP! is only available here digitally in 3D, which is unfortunate -- the management of the two images per frame means that the resolution is half so a lot of what makes Pixar movies beautiful via digital display was lost for the 3D effect which was cool....
    The other incredibly beautiful and almost unbelievable thing I have seen recently was an HD stream of the first season of the original Star Trek. It made me cry, it was so beautiful. Originally shot on film in 1966, that it still exists and can be displayed with such incredible beauty in 2009 -- it simply never looked that good before. I saw it originally via transmitted waves captured by our antenna and I don't think we had a color television set in 1966. My dad liked Star Trek and Get Smart and the family watched them both because of this -- the way we did things in the sixties. So, anyways, I am in no way to be considered a great Star Trek fan -- I am more like someone who saw it when it was originally shown, caught it in reruns a lot and still like it now this many years later. I am a little proud to probably manage to fail any quiz about the Star Trek universe -- I concentrated on trying to remember and understand the world I was living in. That being said, it was an incredible display of preservation and updating for new formats. The colors were so crisp and the flesh tones were fleshy and the sound was certainly surroundy -- I cried. It wasn't anything like 1966, yet interestingly enough, many of the ideas in this series are still good ideas which have yet to see fruition -- that is not eh, transporter beams and phaser guns but instead things like an international crew based on experience and not gender or origin/ancestory, avoiding war instead of finding lame reasons to make one, the pilot was about how human peoples are not likely to want to live in a fantasy world, rewarded with fantasies and punished for whatever by some "keepers". It is very weird how this idea seemed to be timely in 1966 but very advanced in 2009. -- carol (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    Help[edit]

    How can I determine the values of poly of this image? --Digigalos (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    Download the file and look at it with a text editor. Or, get the image in the browser (the commons "File:" pages display png versions of the svg), this is the link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Toledo_-_Mapa_municipal.svg and use "View Source". Some svg will crash browsers due to size or other things. This svg is really clean, btw. It is probably not going to hurt any browser due to those "other things".
    I don't know that much about svg -- however, getting the points for the irregular shapes that are this image should be as simple as determining which group of points draws each region and those are the "polygons"(?).
    Inkscape has an xml viewer which highlights the image area that is drawn by whatever xml tag is selected in it. I don't know what you actually need from the image -- lists of points or what have you, but that is what I know about viewing areas and their definitions in svg files. -- carol (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I need know some like this to know the values of poly in this one image. I want make a template like this --Digigalos (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, svg to imagemap ... interesting. This is the first time I actually compared an Image map coordinates to svg; when I made the image maps I made that are here, I drew new areas with the GIMP Image map plug-in. However, your question makes me wonder why I didn't think to look at the svg points.
    There should be a way to convert from svg into Image map -- the single values for the image map poly's approximately correspond to one or other of the pairs of points used by the svg -- but you saw that, didn't you?
    The example of the image map has most certainly been redrawn from a png the same way I made the ones I made. I know much more about peculiarities of the wikimedia software for displaying image maps than I do about converting between svg and image map. 1)the software doesn't like to use svg (commons doesn't even display svg directly) and 2)while commons is willing and able to emulate svg scalability (by re-rendering thumbnails at different sizes on demand) it won't do this with image maps and needs to have the png that is stored here to be the exact size of the image map.
    I would like to say that wikimedia not being able to render svg directly is the reason I never compared svg pairs to image map points before but that would not be the truth.
    If I were making image maps right now, I would a few things to convert svg pairs into image map points: use the points which start with "L" from the set of svg points, strip everything after the decimal point and the second point of the ordered pair. Also, the commas need to be removed. After I tried that, I would put the new points into the Image map plug-in and see if this new set of data is able to draw a sensible outline and can be managed by an image map editor.
    <path
           d="M 862.96025,325.46873 L 862.0247,321.40505 L 861.24345,317.18629 L 859.68095,311.40503 L 854.68093,312.49878 L 833.58714,317.10816 L 834.21214,320.3113 L 835.61839,327.34257 L 835.61839,335.15508 L 834.52464,337.34259 L 836.29571,339.38112 L 841.08521,336.09375 L 844.52271,332.96875 L 846.39771,330.9375 L 847.17896,331.5625 L 849.83521,330.15625 L 854.83521,329.0625 L 862.96025,325.46873 z "
           style="fill:#d7ffd0"
           id="CT" />
    

    Would then be:

    862 861 859 854 833 834 835 835 834 836 841 844 846 847 849 854 862 
    
    And the regular expression for this (to instruct software how to do this for you) is to take only the numbers between the L and the first decimal point and discard the rest leaving only a space. Stop when you find a z and discard everything after that.
    This feels too easy. The point in my new set 834 gets used twice which might be just fine for image maps but editors might think that the area is closed there. Also, the image map for this svg uses the point 180 but it or a number approximate to it doesn't appear in this set.
    If you try this and find some method that is successful, let me know! -- carol (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    I used a search engine for you: "inkscape image map" and found at the fourth position: http://davidlynch.org/blog/2008/03/creating-an-image-map-from-svg/ -- carol (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    QI categorization[edit]

    Hello, Really puting this image in "Objects/Industrial" is bad categorization. This category is for objects, and this is not an object. It can be categorized as a place, or as an activity, but not as an object. I agree that categorization as "color" might be not the best, but I couldn't find a better one. I have already proposed that more categories to be created. Would you agree with that?

    BTW you don't need to be so pedantic in your message. Yann (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    I am not certain what "pedantic" means; without looking it up, I suspect that I am always going to be this when making first contact, especially when I shouldn't have been making first contact.
    Not that it is a requirement of images of industrial things, but there is only one object there: "leather dye". -- carol (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


    File:Range of Senecio antisanae-Native.svg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Range of Senecio antisanae-Native.svg 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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    --81.173.137.35 02:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    File:Range of Senecio iscoensis-Native.svg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Range of Senecio iscoensis-Native.svg 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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    --81.173.137.35 02:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    National Science Foundation grantee: copyvio?[edit]

    Hi. I noticed that a number of pictures by Pieter Pelser were uploaded on the basis that he was an NSF employee. I raised the question at the Village Pump of whether this really makes them public-domain, so maybe you'll want to comment. JerryFriedman (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


    File:Packera paupercula 8.jpg[edit]

    Pay attention to copyright
    File:Packera paupercula 8.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

    The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


    Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

    --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


    File:Packera paupercula 8.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Packera paupercula 8.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    --Túrelio (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

    Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


    Hello, CarolSpears!

    Tip: Add categories to your images

    Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

    Here's how:

    1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

    Uploadwizard-categories.png

    2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

    [[Category:Category name]]

    For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

    [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
    [[Category:Comets]]

    This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

    When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

    Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

    CategorizationBot (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


    File:Ipomoea hederacea Blanco1.66-original.png[edit]

    ... and it's sister images. This plate from Blanco's Flora de Filipinas (ed. 1:92, ed. 2:68) was correctly identified by Blanco. Villar erroneously changed the name to I. hederacea, but this was corrected by merrill in 1905 [2]. Please change file names Ulf Eliasson (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

    CarolSpears (talk · contribs) is inactive. Please use {{rename}} to correct filenames. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Merrill was as messed up as Blanco was or more actually since Blanco admittedly was guessing while Merrill was making publications. Do find other references before changing file names.... -- carol (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


    All images by Pieter Pelser nominated for deletion[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg All images by Pieter Pelser have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

    If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−


    File:Parnassia palustris (plant)-overexposure.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Parnassia palustris (plant)-overexposure.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    --213.171.63.227 08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    Psittacanthus robustus[edit]

    Hi Carol - Could I ask you to please change the name on the photographs of the plant called "Psittacanthus robustus". The genus Psittacanthus does not occur in the Philippines. The plate that you photographed (from Blanco 1880-1883) is labeled Loranthus tomentosus and below that Macrosolen formosus. Looking at Danser's 1935 "Revision of the Philippine Loranthaceae", he does not list Loranthus tomentosus (as a synonym) nor Macrosolen formosus as names for any Philippine loranth. Curious. So, I looked in his 1931 treatment of Loranthaceae of the Netherland Indies and M. formosus is included. But, the species range is given as Malay Pen., Sumatra and Java, i.e. not the Philippines. From the morphology of the flowers, the plant illustrated is definitely a Macrosolen and likely M. cochinchinensis (see photo at http://www.parasiticplants.siu.edu/Loranthaceae/images/MacrosolenSpLLC.jpg). Thanks for doing this! Dan (Mr. Parasitic Flowering Plants)

    I most certainly will look into changing this very soon. I am sorry it took so long to get back with you, my talk page seems to have become a holder for spam and not for communication.
    Thank you for the signs of intelligent life here.... -- carol (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

    File:Land_on_the_Moon_7_21_1969-repair.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Land_on_the_Moon_7_21_1969-repair.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    howcheng {chat} 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


    File tagging File:Crocodiles in Gard.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 was probably deleted.
    Thanks for uploading File:Crocodiles in Gard.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

    Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

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

    - Zil (d) 09:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Greetings for the coming year[edit]

    Not a lot of intelligent life here nor even unintelligent activity, you have been worn down by the great Commons herd? Oh well, all the best for the coming new year :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

    File:2008-01-03-Magnoliophyta.png[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2008-01-03-Magnoliophyta.png 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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    Teofilo (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

    File:Hieracium_albiflorum.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Hieracium_albiflorum.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    Wknight94 talk 05:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


    File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261-cropped.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261-cropped.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    JuTa 03:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


    File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261-Merremia peltata.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261-Merremia peltata.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    JuTa 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


    File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    JuTa 03:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


    File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261.png[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Convolvulaceae spp Blanco2.261.png 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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    JuTa 03:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

    so long not heared of[edit]

    Tux Linux crystal award nevit.gif Image editor
    Carol I guess why you are away, but dropped a note here to let you know your efforts are appreciated. Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

    File:Delta II OSTM-Jason-2 253109.jpg[edit]

    Pay attention to copyright
    File:Delta II OSTM-Jason-2 253109.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

    The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

    Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


    Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

    Huntster (t @ c) 02:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    Category:Pray_Harrold[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Pray_Harrold 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!


    беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

    cmadler (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

    Category:Bottom_feeding_bitmap_graphics_creators[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Bottom_feeding_bitmap_graphics_creators 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!


    беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

    87.109.96.185 10:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

    Copyright status: File:Acanthus ilicifolius Blanco1.153.jpg[edit]

    Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

    Warning sign
    This media may be deleted.
    Thanks for uploading File:Acanthus ilicifolius Blanco1.153.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

    If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

    If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

    Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

    JuTa 08:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

    Senecio erucifolius vs. Jacobaea erucifolia[edit]

    Hi CarolSpears,

    According to the The Global Compositae Checklist [3] Senecio erucifolius [4] and Jacobaea erucifolia [5] are two different plant species, with two different homeranges S. erucifolius [6] and J. erucifolia [7]. Why made a redirect? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

    This matter is already solved. DenesFeri (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

    File:Senecio brasiliensis flowering stalk.jpg[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Senecio brasiliensis flowering stalk.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 file, 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.
    Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

    Gunnex (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

    Category:Geography_of_Southeastern_United_States[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Geography_of_Southeastern_United_States 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!


    беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

    Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

    Category:Geography_of_Northeastern_United_States[edit]

    Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Geography_of_Northeastern_United_States 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!


    беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

    Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)