User talk:JoJan/Archive1

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

Alliaria[edit]

Hai Jojan. De goede Latijnse naam is Alliaria en niet Allaria. Typefoutje? Rasbak 15:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Inderdaad. Wel in de Commons geplaatst onder de juiste naam. JoJan 15:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Platycladus orientalis(01).jpg[edit]

Hi Jo - your pics Image:Platycladus orientalis(01).jpg and Image:Platycladus.orientalis(02).jpg are Juniperus x pfitzeriana (hybrid J. chinensis x J. sabina) - MPF 10:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reuploaded them under the right name and asked for a speedy deletion of both Platyclades pictures and their page JoJan 19:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Albizia" and "Acacia dealbata"[edit]

Hello JoJan! Your images Image:Albizia julibrissin.jpg, Image:Albizia julibrissin(02).jpg, and Image:Albizia julibrissin(04).jpg are Metasequoia glyptostroboides.
Your images Image:Acacia dealbata(02).jpg, Image:Acacia dealbata(03).jpg, and Image:Acacia dealbata(04).jpg are definitely not Acacia dealbata. A. dealbata has bipinnate leaves, whereas your Acacia has undivided phyllodia. I will try to determine the plants on your photos. Moreover, in Image:Acacia dealbata(03).jpg you have forgotten to put a license tag. --Franz Xaver 12:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Albizia julibrissin.jpg has been reuploaded as Image:Metasequioa glyptostroboides - speedy deletion has been requested. The photos of the two other Albizia julibrissin pictures were taken from a different tree that has the Albizia habit and not the Metasequioa habit. I'll make a photo of it in a couple of days and upload it. Then you can make your decision which tree it is. I have added the licence tag GFDL to the Acacia image. Someone has suggested it was Acacia melanoxylon. But this tree occurs in the western Mediterranean (Spain, Italy) but not in Turkey. JoJan 15:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I am very sure with the two other photos that these are Metasequoia. The leaves are quite unequivocal. I thought that also Image:Albizia julibrissin.jpg would be from the same tree. However, now knowing this is not the case, I think it could also be another species of Cupressaceae. It should be better to photograph also the leaves of this tree to be sure about the identity. Anyway, none of the photos is Albizia.
All of these Acacia species with phyllodes (e.g. A. melanoxylon, A. saligna) originate from Australia. (Also A. dealbata is an Australian species.) So the place where you found this Acacia does not give much information. All species cultivated somewhere in the Mediterranean can also be grown in other regions. --Franz Xaver 15:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Now I am sure, your Acacia photos are Acacia saligna which is an Australian species widely planted in the Mediterranean. --Franz Xaver 16:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
You're right. Well done. I'm renaming these pictures and re-uploading them,while asking for a speedy deletion of the original uploads. JoJan 18:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Populus alba(01-02).jpg[edit]

Hi Jo - Image:Populus alba(01).jpg and Image:Populus alba(02).jpg are not Populus alba; I'm not 100% certain what they are, they might be Platanus x hispanica (can you get a close-up pic of the leaves?). - Thanks, MPF 15:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jo - Sorry, definite Platanus; they answer well to the cultivar 'Pyramidalis' which has (Bean, Trees and Shrubs hardy in the British Isles) "Leaves ... with usually three, more rarely five, rather short and broad, sparsely toothed lobes, truncate or shallowly cordate at the base" ... "the epithet 'Pyramidalis' must have been attached to it when only young plants were known, since mature trees are broad-crowned". I took some (not too good!) photos of Populus alba in my local park which I'll upload shortly - MPF 20:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Done - Image:Populus alba branch.jpg Image:Populus alba leaf.jpg Image:Populus alba trunk.jpg - MPF 20:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, as soon as I can find the time, I'll reupload the images under the proper name and ask for a speedy deletion of the misnamed images. JoJan 08:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Belgian Red Cross volunteers picture[edit]

Thanks for adding the picture with the Belgian Red Cross volunteers to the gallery about the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement! Don't hesitate to add other pictures to that gallery if you find or upload them. Best Regards, --Uwe 22:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. JoJan 16:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Shrinking pictures[edit]

Why are you resizing images like Image:VOC ship Amsterdam.jpg?? The changes are losing a lot of resolution and detail that we really want to keep (compare the stern carvings for instance). Stan Shebs 20:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited this picture in Photoshop CS. The original picture was simply too dark and lacking detail. I adjusted the image levels and sharpened the edges. I saved the file in a normal way. I didn't "Save for web' which would have resized the image. So I don't understand why the file of this picture has shrunk. As to the stern caevings, I can't see any carvings in the original image. JoJan 15:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've done my homework again. Now the file size is even a bit larger. OK, now ? JoJan 15:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. I guess what one really wants to do to go back and take a new picture on a sunnier day - I've done that a couple of times recently. BTW, by "stern carvings" I just mean the two figures on each side of the stern windows, and the scrollwork above and below. The facial features of the figures and the name of the ship are good checks for image quality. Stan Shebs 20:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added another (rather low-resolution) picture from nl.wikipedia to Amsterdam (ship)

Asimov[edit]

Hi JoJan. Do you remember how you found Image:Isaac.Asimov01.jpg? The link you provided to the Library of Congress doesn't work. If you could find the image again and provide more information, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! dbenbenn | talk 22:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the trouble with links - they move or disappear. Luckily, I found the link again : it just had moved. Now it should be OK JoJan 14:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No dice. Notice the word "temp" in your link? Anyway, I've tried searching for "Asimov" at memory.loc.gov and couldn't find anything. Could you write how you found the image, including as much information as possible about how you searched, what you clicked on, etc? Thanks a lot, dbenbenn | talk 19:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Downloaded from Library of Congress: Prints & Photographs Online Catalog - In the search box : fill in "Isaac Asimov" and mention "match words exactly" JoJan 08:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carduus nutans -> Silybum marianum[edit]

Hello JoJan! Your photos Image:Carduus nutans01.jpg, Image:Carduus nutans02.jpg, Image:Carduus nutans03.jpg do not show Carduus nutans. These plant actually is Silybum marianum. Regards --Franz Xaver 22:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi JoJan! I considered also Silybum eburneum which is the only other species of this genus. According to "Flora Europaea", it only occurs in Spain and northwestern Africa and it has longer spines on the leaves than Silybum marianum.
I also found photos of Silybum marianum with nodding flowering heads - see [1]. In my opinion this depends on supply of water and nutrients. When the plants grows on sites with more water and nutrients than usual, sclerenchyma is less well developed and so the stem is too weak to hold the heads upright. --Franz Xaver 26 June 2005 20:16 (UTC)

Image:Centaurea cyanus01.jpg[edit]

Hi! This photo is not Centaurea cyanus, but Nigella damascena. Cheers --Franz Xaver 28 June 2005 20:19 (UTC)

"Sambucus" -> Sorbus[edit]

Hello JoJan! Your photos Image:Sambucus nigra.01.jpg and Image:Sambucus nigra.leaf.jpg show Sorbus aucuparia. Cheers --Franz Xaver 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Narcissus[edit]

Hello JoJan,

The title of your picture thumb|Galanthus nivalis03.jpg is false, this is not a Galanthus but a cultivated species of Narcissus. It would be interesting to upload once more the picture with a correct title and ask for an administrator to delete the bad one !

Best regards. Jean-Jacques MILAN 20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Salix herbacea(02).jpg[edit]

Hi Jo - the pic you uploaded Image:Salix herbacea(02).jpg is unfortunately not Salix herbacea; that species does not occur in Alaska (where the photo is noted as being from on its source website), and is also glabrous, whereas the photo shows pubescent leaves. From a quick look through here, I suspect it may be Salix arctica but I'm not certain. There is an i.d. key at that website, but my computer can't open it so I've not been able to try keying it out. - MPF 22:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Silybum marianum" -> Dipsacus[edit]

Hello JoJan! Beware van de distels! This time it is the other way round. Image:Silybum marianum11.jpg is some Dipsacus species. If the photo was taken in the Netherlands, it is Dipsacus fullonum. Best wishes --Franz Xaver 20:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Parts of feather photo[edit]

Hi JoJan, Just been browsing wiki and came across the feather article. Your photo Image:Parts of feather.jpg is good, but I feel that the labelling could do with some work, particularly the curved "vane" part. If you don't want to do this I'd be happy to if you could upload a version without the labelling. Keep up the good work. --fir0002 06:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer on the discussion page of User:Fir0002 JoJan 08:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Aceras, Anacamptis etc.[edit]

Hallo, JoJan, you have changed some names of the genera Aceras and Orchis. The results of "Chase, Pridgeon and Bateman" s researches are accepted of a part (for example "KEW"), but not of the whole scientific world. I think, we should discuss, to give the nomenclatura of orchids a "KEW" - standard in Wiki-Commons. Until now the most international Wikipedias use the "old" nomenclatura. Greetings! Orchi 19:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed an important discussion. I, for one, try to follow the taxonomy and nomenclature as found in the Orchid Newsletters of Kew and their World Checklist of Monocotyledons. At least, "Kew" is recognized as the world authority, when it comes to orchids. This does not mean I don't look to other databases such as MOBOT. But this one sometimes trails behind. As to Aceras, it is recognized to be a former monotypic genus. Relying on internet sources is not always productive, since many internet articles are rather old and not adapted to latest insights. We should try to do better, since Wikipedia is more and more used as a reference. Otherwise, we fall back and get lost in the jungle of the taxonomy. Or to paraphrase it with the words of the eminent Danish orchid taxonomist Finn N. Rasmussen  : "Are there really no rules? Nope, taxonomy is absolute anarchy.". Let's hope not. JoJan 05:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, JoJan, thank you for your quick answer. I propose to resign changes in the moment. In the german Wikipedia was the diskussion about "Chase" in the rewiev of the article Orchis ustulata (or Neotinea ustulata). [[2]] I think, we will have an agreement soon. Greeting! Orchi 18:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I think just because Wikipedia is growing up to an important reference, it should mention and respect the different views in these points, as long as scientific positions are controverse. - Mg-k 10:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


Hallo, Marco, BerndH, JoJan, ich habe einen Kompromiss versucht und die Wikipedia - Chance der Verlinkung Aceras anthropophorum wahrgenommen. Viele Grüße ( I tried a compromise with Wiki - links). Greetings Orchi 10:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mg-k and Orchi for your comments and the compromise. But I cannot help observing that recent literature prefers Orchis anthropophora over Aceras anthropophorum, while Aceras anthropophorum is preferred in older literature. See : GENERIC RE-DELIMITATION in the article "Molecular phylogenetics and evolution of Orchidinae and selected Habenariinae (Orchidaceae)" by RICHARD M. BATEMAN, PETER M. HOLLINGSWORTH, JILLIAN PRESTON, LUO YI-BO, ALEC M. PRIDGEON and MARK W. CHASE [3] where a rationale is being given. JoJan 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

patten photo[edit]

I see your photograph of pattens at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Walraversijde49.jpg Do you have any other pictures that show more detail of the wood grain or of the top surface? I am interested in creating reproduction pattens. Thanks -- JakeVortex

I'm afraid not. This is just one of the many photos I made at the museum site of Walraversijde wikipedia article in Dutch. However, on the Commons, the article Walraversijde includes some pictures of reproductions of medieval shoes : Canopy bed, treasure chest and small brick hearth. Perhaps, if you want more information, you could send an email to Mr. Alex Deseyne, the curator of the museum. He and his chief archeologist have been most helpful when I wrote my article in nl.Wikipedia. The email address is : [domein.raversijde@west-vlaanderen.be]. Perhaps they can take detailed photos of these pattens and send it to you. JoJan 12:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Firenze[edit]

Thanks for the beautifull photos of Florence you're uploading here. Ciao, Mac9 09:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Galileo[edit]

You should re-tag the copyright status of your Galileo statue photo. Because it is a photo of a 3D work of art, you own the copyright to the photo itself, so the fact that the statue itself is old doesn't matter. You can GFDL it or release it to public domain or whatever you want.--Ragesoss 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done JoJan 09:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Belgian Red Cross volunteers picture[edit]

Good evening JoJan, some months ago you've uploaded this picture which shows Belgian Red Cross volunteers. A German publisher which is in the process of publishing a book series made from Wikipedia articles is planning a Red-Cross-related book within this series. I'm one of the editors for this book. The draft cover for the book uses a portion of this the picture as you can see here. While this is a draft only and might change until the book is finalized, it is rather likely that this version of the cover is used. My question is this: do you know the guy who is shown on the picture, and if yes, could you contact him? While he agreed with publishing the picture within the Wikipedia (as mentioned in your upload comment), I would like to make sure that he specifically agrees with being on the front page of a book. And to be honest, I would like to send him a copy as well, once the book is finished with him being on the front cover. So if you have any options to contact him about this matter, I kindly ask you to do so. Best Regards, --Uwe 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know this man personally. While I was passing by during a show (in May 2005) of Tall Ships in Oostende, Belgium, I saw this Red Cross crew. I thought of Wikipedia needing a fitting picture. So, I asked them and their superior for authorisation to make this picture. Since most probably they were local Red Cross volunteers, I would advise you to get into contact by email with : rodekruis.oostende@skynet.be

Their address is :

Rode Kruis Vlaanderen - afdeling Oostende

Torhoutsesteenweg 56

B-8400 Oostende

België

Tel. ++/32/59/508 508

You can also refer in your email to the article in the nl.wikipedia [4], so that they can see the importance of this photo. By the way, I like the cover of this book. Good luck JoJan 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. I will try to get in contact with them. Hopefully, they are able to identify him in some way or the other. A name tag on his jacket or an identifiable call sign or license plate on the car would have been helpful, but maybe it will work anyway. Best Regards, --Uwe 22:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi JoJan, it's me again. I sent them an e-mail on February 2 (in English), but did not receive a reply up to now. Would you mind calling them via the number above and tell them about this issue? Maybe the problem is simply that the above e-mail address is not checked on a regular schedule, so telling them to check the account rodekruis.oostende@skynet.be is all that's needed. Best Regards, --Uwe 16:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Uwe. It took me some time, but I've been able to identify this Red Cross volunteer. I've just sent him an email and I am awaiting his response. As this concerns personal matters, I don't wish to reveal this on this page (which falls under GFDL), therefore I ask you to send me an email (see on the left: toolbox : E-mail this user). Further correspondence can be handled through email. JoJan 14:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoJan, I sent you an e-mail via the Wikipedia E-Mail feature. If you did not receive it, let me know. --Uwe 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Hallo Jojan,

Misschien ben je geinteresseerd in Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life

TeunSpaans 19:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ik heb me maar aangemeld vermits ik toch al volop bezig was met het uploaden van foto's en het bewerken van bestaande artikels (tot op heden: 3650 bewerkingen in the Commons). JoJan 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
welkom! En vooral doorgaan! TeunSpaans 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oostende[edit]

Hallo JoJan, ik kwam net de afbeelding Image:H0010451-P.JPG tegen waar in de rechterbovenhoek een witte ruimte is die het gevolg is van de stitching van de afzonderlijke foto's. Ik ben zo vrij geweest om dit te verwijderen en de foto opnieuw te uploaden als Image:Oostende panoramic view.jpg. Als je hiermee akkoord bent, zou ik vervolgens het origineel voordragen voor verwijdering (en de referenties aanpassen). Groetjes, Tbc 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Akkoord. Ik had het reeds lang zelf moeten doen. JoJan 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Firenze.Palvecchio.Cellini02.JPG[edit]

I presume that you meant to release this photo PD-self rather than PD-Old, so I changed it. It this is incorrect, I apologize. Please correct with the PD rights you wish to restrict. -Mak

Image:William Blake's grave with flower.jpg[edit]

Hi, I can see that you lightened my image up a bunch so that it looks nicer... but why did you make it so much smaller? --gren 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The resizing must have happened in Photoshop. So, I've done my work again, and even added a few new gimmicks to make it even look better (but adding to the size of the file). Anyway, the original size of the image has not been changed this time. JoJan 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Try a program called irfanview at www.irfanview.com WayneRay 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Lange Nelle[edit]

Hello. I'm a user from the Dutch Wiki, and using the CommonsTicker over there, I noticed that one of your pictures, Image:Vuurtoren(01).jpg was deleted. (In the Ducth wiki, it was picture of the week in one of the portals) A lot of files were deleted that day, trying to resolve the backlog, and I think deletion of your file maybe was unjustified. Could you check with the deleting admin, and maybe have the image restored? --Tuvic 20:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The last version of the image page before deletion was:
{{no source since|month=May|day=26|year=2006}}
Oostende - Belgium
the lighthouse, commonly called 'Lange Nelle'
It could easily be restored if you can provide the source and licence for the picture. Groet, NielsF 20:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought I've restored it already, because you weren't notified of the deletion request and most other uploads of yours in that time were properly tagged/sourced. Please add the information to the picture. I've added a new nomination. I've noticed that a few of your other uploads from that period, for example Image:Westerstaketsel(02).jpg, have also been nominated for deletion. Please check these uploads and add source/license information. If needed ask me on my talkpage for restoring (if possible) of the image. According to policy I have added a new nomination request, see the notification below. Groet, NielsF 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the appropriate copyright tag JoJan 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vuurtoren(01).jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vuurtoren(01).jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. NielsF 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate copyright tag. JoJan 18:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Maria Taferl.Wallfahrtsbasilika15.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Maria Taferl.Wallfahrtsbasilika15.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 04:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer on the user page of Rüdiger Wölk. Proper licence tag has been given. JoJan 05:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Transfer[edit]

Hello JoJan. If you transfer images from other Wikipedias, please always copy the whole description page and especially copy the name of the author. See [5] where I added missing information. --Thanks Crux 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:KarlVI.02.jpg[edit]

Hi, to explain what's the problem of the picture - the lighting was probably done by internal flash of the camera. Such lighting has many problems - objects loose plasticity, created by play of lights and shadow created by light comping from the side. Paralax between flash and objective creates very dark, harsh shadows around objects. On shiny surfaces, harsh overblown reflections are common...
I think the image could be easily improve by either use natural lighting, if there is some. Or use of external flash, and diffusing the light it somehow - bounce from siling, wall, use of diffuser, or anything --Wikimol 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apt advices. But the picture was taken in very difficult circumstances, with a whole crowd pressing around the sarcophagus inside the semi-dark crypt. The photo was taken by zooming in and waiting for that fraction of a second that no one was in sight. In my opinion, the value of this photo lies in the unique image of an emperor, represented by a golden skull with the the crown of the Holy Roman Empire. Going back to Vienna, Austria, to make a new picture with bounced light is no option. JoJan 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

COPY VIO![edit]

I've removed the recent comments. This was an account designed for impersonating a real contributor. He has been blocked. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JoJan 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mayerling letter image[edit]

Hi! I've been editing the Mayerling Incident article, and I had a couple of questions regarding the photos you contributed, specifically the final letter image. I wanted to know where the original document is located (museum, etc) and also an English translation of the text if possible. I'm trying to develop the conspiracy theory section, and I'd like to know whether the letter supports any of the theories. If you could please reply on my Wikipedia talk page here, that would be great. I'm rarely on the Commons. Thanks! --Kerowyn 07:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer on the talk page of Kerowyn JoJan 08:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Batalha.Pinus pinaster01.jpg[edit]

Hi Jo - Image:Batalha.Pinus pinaster01.jpg is Araucaria heterophylla, not Pinus pinaster. I have re-indexed the photo; maybe it should also be re-named? - MPF 19:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo renamed. Deletion has been requested of Image:Batalha.Pinus pinaster01.jpg JoJan 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be better to mark the image as {{Bad name|correct name}}. If I understood from your deleting request, the correct name is Image:Batalha.Araucaria heterophylla01.jpg. Am I right?
Best regards, Yuval YChat • 18:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The right name is indeed Image:Batalha.Araucaria heterophylla01.jpg JoJan 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Next time - use {{Bad name|correct name}}. Yuval YChat • 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

foto[edit]

Ha die Jojan, Ik ben niet echt te vinden met het uploaden van deze afbeelding (Image:Wikimeet.Gent.19nov0611.jpg); overzichtsfoto's waar ik opsta daar heb ik geen problemen mee, maar van "close-ups" zie ik het nut niet van in, vooral wetende dat die afbeeldingen (onder de GNU-FDL of CC) door iedereen kunnen gebruikt worden. Ik zou die graag verwijderd gezien, ik hoop dat je er niet teveel werk aan gehad hebt. Aangezien je hier geen admin bent heb ik de foto als "deletion" gemarkeerd. Groetjes, MADe

Geen probleem, het is je volste recht. Ik dacht dat je hieroor toelating gegeven had. JoJan 19:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Inderdaad, maar na het zien van de foto, en het ten volle beseffen van de mogelijkheden zie ik van deze optie af. MADe 17:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wikimeet.Gent.19nov0612.jpg[edit]

Hello, you propably forgot to specify license in this image. --Derbeth talk 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. License has now been added. JoJan 13:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)