User talk:MILEPRI

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

Etiquetando imagen Image:Hoja_bipinnada.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
Esta imagen puede ser borrada.

Gracias por subir Image:Hoja_bipinnada.jpg. Me he dado cuenta de que la página de la imagen actualmente no especifica quién creó el contenido, así que el estatus del derecho de autor no está claro. Si no has creado tú mismo esta imagen, entonces es necesario que argumentes por qué la imagen se puede usar en Wikimedia Commons (ver el enlace de etiquetas de derecho de autor abajo); también debes especificar dónde la encontraste; por ejemplo, en la mayoría de los casos, un enlace a la web de donde la tomaste y los términos de uso del contenido de esa web.

Si la imagen no tiene una etiqueta de derecho de autor también debes añadírsela. Si tú creaste la imagen, entonces puedes usar {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} para licenciarla con Creative Commons, o {{PD-self}} para ponerla en el dominio público. Puedes mirar Marcas de derechos de autor para la lista completa de etiquetas que se pueden usar.

Ten en cuenta que cualquier imagen sin fuente o sin etiqueta será borrada una semana después de que haya sido subida, como se describe en criterios para borrado rápido. Si has subido otras imágenes, por favor, comprueba que has especificado también sus orígenes y sus etiquetas de derecho de autor. Puedes encontrar todas los archivos que has subido usando la herramienta Gallery. Gracias. Loco085 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Etiquetando imagen Image:Hoja_pinnada.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
Esta imagen puede ser borrada.

Gracias por subir Image:Hoja_pinnada.jpg. Me he dado cuenta de que la página de la imagen actualmente no especifica quién creó el contenido, así que el estatus del derecho de autor no está claro. Si no has creado tú mismo esta imagen, entonces es necesario que argumentes por qué la imagen se puede usar en Wikimedia Commons (ver el enlace de etiquetas de derecho de autor abajo); también debes especificar dónde la encontraste; por ejemplo, en la mayoría de los casos, un enlace a la web de donde la tomaste y los términos de uso del contenido de esa web.

Si la imagen no tiene una etiqueta de derecho de autor también debes añadírsela. Si tú creaste la imagen, entonces puedes usar {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} para licenciarla con Creative Commons, o {{PD-self}} para ponerla en el dominio público. Puedes mirar Marcas de derechos de autor para la lista completa de etiquetas que se pueden usar.

Ten en cuenta que cualquier imagen sin fuente o sin etiqueta será borrada una semana después de que haya sido subida, como se describe en criterios para borrado rápido. Si has subido otras imágenes, por favor, comprueba que has especificado también sus orígenes y sus etiquetas de derecho de autor. Puedes encontrar todas los archivos que has subido usando la herramienta Gallery. Gracias. Loco085 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Acacia_nilotica.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Acacia_nilotica.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 content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

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 {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license 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. Loco085 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Acacia acanthoclada.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Acacia acanthoclada.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 content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

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 {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license 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. gildemax 11:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Please tag images

Please tag your images[edit]

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you. gildemax 11:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sonchus.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand

Image:Cervantes_jauregui.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand

Classification of Narcissus[edit]

Dear MILEPRI,

I see that you are reclassifying the genus Narcissus, according with the World Checklist.

  • You are right: N. canaliculatus is synonym of N. tazetta subsp. tazetta (not of subsp. italicus). Sorry for having interfered with you! This plant is growing very well in my garden in Belgium.
  • I have also transferred (again) N. pseudonarcissus subsp. major and N. confusus to N. hispanicus.
  • Some pictures first identified as N. hispanicus have been later identified as N. muñozii-garmendiae. I have reclassified them accordingly. I will later this day rename them accordingly.

I still try to arbitrate conflicts.
For you info: In the past I have had some troubles with A. Barra, who is e.g. convinced the N. confusus is not a synonym of N. hispanicus, and that N. hispanicus is not a true species.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: I have renamed the pictures, who were first identified as N. hispanicus and have been later identified as N. muñozii-garmendiae. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Astragalus brachycalyx[edit]

Hello,
Do you remember why you did that ?
If it is about synonym, you should have renamed the cat or added a {{SN}}.
But what you did is not very explicit.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Images from Curtis's[edit]

Thank you for adding info to the images! Uleli (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Botanists[edit]

Hi MILEPRI, I see that create many many categories for Botanists. In each case, please also move the birth year, death year and other categories from the single photo to the new category, so these data must not be entered for each future file separately. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up[edit]

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. :-) -- (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Lysimachia arvensis or Anagallis arvensis?[edit]

Dear Milepri,

I have seen that you have reverted one of my edits. There are currently two different categories for the same plant : Lysimachia arvensis and Anagallis arvensis. According to Wikimedia policies, we have to make a choice and redirect the other one.

Please advise, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

little tip[edit]

....here the names above the image: e.g. [1]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Botanical illustrations" categories for algae[edit]

Hello Milepri, I noticed that you made a lot of categories like Category:Bryopsis - botanical illustrations. Please stop making those categories for algal taxa. There are thousands of algal species. Most of them have only illustrations, and for the majority of algae, this will be true for years. It makes no sense to have a double categorization for them! Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Botanical illustrations" for fungi[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, illustrations of fungi are not botanical but mycological illustrations! The Category:Botanical illustrations by taxon is a subcategory of "Plants by taxon", and fungi do not belong to plants. If you like to make categories for mycological illustrations, please sort them unter Category:Illustrations of fungi. Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Botanical illustrations" for conifers[edit]

Hi MILEPRI - be nice if you could stick to the established format and call these categories "Xxxxx xxxxx (illustrations)" rather than "Xxxxx xxxxx - botanical illustrations". Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jahn-Peter_Frahm[edit]

92.73.70.204 10:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Taxa, subfamiliae, BioLib and categories[edit]

Hello MILEPRI I saw with pleasure that you provide a lot of {{Taxa}} with source and accessdate.
I have some recommendations:

  • First parameter of {{Taxa}} is "subfamilia" if there is only one or "subfamiliae" (not subfamilias) if there are multiple subtaxa. This parameter is documented in {{Taxa}}
  • You should use {{BioLib}} which syntax is very easy: {{BioLib|12456}}. It will allow us to change the url easely when the web site will change
    Example of correction - even better correction
  • Category (like [[category:Coreinae]]) are supposed to be at the end of the page, before interwiki (not at beginning). There is a huge consensus on this on all wikis
    Look at this: it start with spaces.
    Example of correction
  • * should not be used in {{VN}} (like here), but |
    Example of correction
  • the correct source for species.wikimedia.org is source=species (See here). You can find the source documentation in {{Taxasource}}


Sometimes, you are a bit too quick:

Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Too quick[edit]

Please take your time. Check the result of your edits.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Too quick again[edit]

Are you planning to pay me for correcting all your errors?
Please slow down and check you work.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Partial work[edit]

There is something I don't understand. You seem to want to create all subfamilies and tribes. fine with with me.
But why do you do a partial work ????

Regards Liné1 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

He creado esta subfamilia porque había que incluir al género Mutilla, la otra subfamilia no ha sido creada porque aun no ha aparecido níngun artículo para la misma. La idea es no crear artículos vacíos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at Category:Mutillidae: Dasymutilla‎ is in Category:Sphaeropthalminae.
En Schizorhinini están tribus y géneros juntos porque los géneros son de dicha tribu incerta sedis, pendientes de clasificar correctamente segun BioLib--MILEPRI (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at Category:Schizorhinini: Agestrata‎ (and Category:Agestrata luzonica‎) is in Category:Lomapterina (BioLib).
But I am not sure that providing subtribes is reasonable. Their content differs too much between sources.
  • [:Category:Macroglossina]: you list 30 genus but don't move them

Excellent work[edit]

Excellent work you did on Acrididae.
No more pictures in Acrididae.
Well done.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

About the subtribes in Category:Catantopini.
Wouldn't agree not to create subtribes ?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

another hint[edit]

Hello,
When you find a category which is a synonym, don't ask for its suppression.
Someone will recreate it.
Instead you should use a {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}.
Check this correction as example.
It also explains everything: Beckius is a syn. for Eupatorus.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

source[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Could you use source=species, not source=wikispecies, please?
I have 60 categories to correct after this mistake.
You can find these categories in Category:Pages_with_incorrect_biology_template_usage.
By the way, the list of available source is described in {{Taxasource}}.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Coleoptera & Lepidoptera[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
I am trying to improve their documentation.

Category:Pages with incorrect biology template usage is filled with categories with incorrect {{Coleoptera}} & {{Lepidoptera}} calls.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You can answer here by prefixing your answer with {{Ping|Liné1}}, it will warn me that you answered.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hello my friend,
I saw that you finished with Arthropods.
There is a group that really needs cleaning: Category:Fungi.
Perhaps you could do something ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Liné1: OK

DiscoverLife[edit]

Hello,
DiscoverLife is not currently managed as source.
Do you want me to manage it ?
With which url ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I added it.
Please be careful: it is DiscoverLife NOT DiscoveryLife
Regards Liné1 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No entiendo[edit]

esta edición, ¿me lo puedes explicar? ese archivo fue extraído de aquí y está en la misma categoría (Category:Coleoptera illustrations). Gracias --Jcfidy (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'd just like to express my appreciation for your tireless work tidying the botany categories. Those of us who take these photos often don;t have the time or the resources to correctly categorise them. Thank you for cleaning up after us and keeping Wikimedia functional. Kudos. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I could not agree more! Keep up te great work! Josve05a (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Botanical illustrations[edit]

¡Hola MILEPRI,
Por favor: Por ejemplo: sellos and Heráldica etc.= en el arte (in art)
plantas dibujos de libros científicos = - botanical illustrations
gracias! Orchi (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

...muchas gracias!! Orchi (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

tribes[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Wikicommons has not taxonomy for purpose.

  • Category:Amelinae, Category:Acromantinae: you should not create a tribe category if its subfamily is monotypique (subfamily has only one tribe). This is unanimously bad.
  • why did you create subcategories if you don't fill them ?? You are waiting for me to move the genera in the tribes ?

Regards Liné1 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

partial work[edit]

I don't understand: why did you create only Category:Panurgini under Category:Panurginae ? Why not the 6 other tribes ?
Are you waiting for me to do it ?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you work on genera, restrict your work to genera. You can do tribes later.
There are thousands of families, you will never finish the partial work you are doing.
I am still working on Category:Oecophorinae for you.
I really don't enjoy cleaning behind you.
It is killing me.
Liné1 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

disambiguation syntax[edit]

There is a better syntax for disambiguation: see here.
This allows an easy future update of the lists.
Also the disamb: section if copied to all calls to {{Genera}}.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Bagatela[edit]

¡Hola MILEPRI, pequeños errores en el libro original (número de página):

Gracias y saludos. Orchi (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

why Category:Delphinieae in Category:Aconiteae ?[edit]

Hello, why did you rename Category:Delphinieae in Category:Aconiteae ?

Please provide sources. Regards Liné1 (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Don't worry, I will put it back. Regards Liné1 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lucanidae identification, sure?[edit]

Hello, are you sure with [2]? as far i know this species is not living in Chile. and it looks different to the species on the photo. Holger1959 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

answer to [3]:
please compare the 2 images and notice the obvious differences. and please understand that German common names are not necessarily equal to exact species names, especially when a common name is given in quotation marks, which should obviously emphasise the uncertainty and (look-alike) "similarity only". Actually „Hirschkäfer“ may refer to several species within the large Stag beetle (Lucanidae) family. For this usage of the name see eg. de:Australischer Pracht-Hirschkäfer (Phalacrognathus muelleri): a different species. So based on names given in a description/filename only, i hope you would not classify eg. this image as a real elephant ;)
When you only guess a species and images end up misidentified, you do not help Commons. i will revert therefore. Holger1959 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Kil" (clay) pumpkin[edit]

Kil kabağı (clay pumpkins)

Hi. You seem to know a lot on these issues. To which cucurbita category should I place this pic? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Ficus_tsjahela[edit]

Tangopaso (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Spider taxonomy[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, I'm afraid your spider taxonomy is about 50 years outdated. For example you list the taxonomy of Zygoballus as Familia: Salticidae; Subfamilia: Dendryphantinae; Tribus: Zygoballini; Genus: Zygoballus, but the current taxonomy is Familia: Salticidae; Subfamilia: Salticinae; Tribus: Dendryphantini; Subtribus: Dendryphantina; Genus: Zygoballus. Could I ask what source you are using (so that perhaps it could be updated)? Kaldari (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like you've added a whole lot of very ancient spider taxonomy (that is no longer valid) across hundreds of categories. This is going to be a lot of work to try to clean-up. Next time, please ask at WikiProject Spiders or somewhere similar before embarking on such a project. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
For the family Salticidae (the largest spider family), the most recent taxonomy can found in "A phylogenetic classification of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae)". This taxonomy is well accepted and not in conflict with any other proposals. The taxonomy you have used seems to mostly be from Eugène Simon's Histoire Naturelle des Araignées (1892-1903), which lost favor around the 1960s. I'm curious what source you used that would have such an old taxonomy. Kaldari (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
On English Wikipedia, we typically just use the family and genus (without subfamiliy, tribe, subtribe, etc.) for spider taxonomy, since the families and genera have been stable for decades, but the taxons between them change frequently. It would be good to keep the taxonomy on Commons less specific, because no one is actually going to maintain the taxonomy here. Wikispecies has the same problem. The taxonomy is very detailed, but no one keeps it up to date. Having fewer taxons is actually better since it requires less maintenance. Kaldari (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and just remove the subfamily and tribe information from the Salticidae categories since this information is wrong for all of them (and very outdated). I hope that is OK. Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Municipal_District_of_Willow_Creek_No._26[edit]

Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Petalostylis_labechoides[edit]

Mark Marathon (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

source=?[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
You added some source=? like here.
I suppose that the source is Insectoid, so I added source=Insectoid for you.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

VN useWikidata[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
About useWikidata=, please don't use it. (See here the rare case when you can use useWikidata)
When I removed it, 2 errors were displayed.
I just solved them in wikidata!
If you don't want to solve the errors, I will do the correction.
But please don't add useWikidata tp hide the errors.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Translations[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Could you look at the spanish translations in Biology_internationalization_templates.
I am not sure they are good.
Thanks Liné1 (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Category redirect[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Please don't redirect categories.
Use {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}, {{Synonym taxon category redirect}} or {{Monotypic taxon category redirect}}.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • You're still doing this. Please stop. --R'n'B (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was not asking you to stop creating synonyms. Rather, it is how you are doing it that is the problem. It is an error to redirect a category. See Commons:Redirect and Commons:Category redirects. Instead, you should add an appropriate template to the page:
    INCORRECT - #REDIRECT [[:Category:Accepted name]]
    CORRECT - {{Category redirect|Accepted name}}
    CORRECT - {{Synonym taxon category redirect|Accepted name}}
    CORRECT - {{Monotypic taxon category redirect|Accepted name}}
I hope this clears up the confusion. --R'n'B (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not rose buds[edit]

Please explain what you've been doing here, or else stop doing it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

OK was a error.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing images from category Ulmus[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
I see you have removed multiple images from category 'Ulmus' and added other categories uncluding 'Famous Ulmus'. The tree you added to 'Famous Ulmus' is far from famous.
May I ask why you removed them from Ulmus, rather than keeping it and just adding another category?
Could I ask please that you add back the category 'Ulmus' where you have removed it - after all they're still Ulmus
Thank you, Tom_elmtalk 10:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

PS. I owe you an apology, I see the logic of your recategorisation. Some images would be better suited to more than one category though. Have you ever tried using Cat-a-lot? It would save you a huge amount of time. Tom_elmtalk 07:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)