User:WayneRay/Archives01

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WayneRay/Archives01

• Original Talk Page is User talk:WayneRay

{{PD-Canada}}

Hi Wayne Ray, I saw your comment at Commons:Copyright tags. I added the ones for Canada. We already had them, they just weren't listed there. BTW there is no systematic bias against Canada - our users are from all over the world, not just the United States. We're all volunteers just like you, so if you see something missing, you're always welcome to fix it yourself. :) cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada

WayneRay 14:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay if you come back to read this, thanks and I wasn't sure about doing something myself, it seems more official here LOL. Thanks again. I am working on acquiring the right ot put public domain photos on here and a couple other projects that the Canada clarification will come in handy.

Hi Wayne, that's no problem. Welcome to the Commons, BTW :). If you ever have any questions or need some help, feel free to ask at the Commons:Help desk or on my talk page. Also, I'm not sure if you've got the hang of signing your posts - generally people do it at the end of their message, by typing ~~~~ . When you hit "Save" the four tildes will automatically be turned into a link to your userpage and a timestamp. And it is common (although not universal) to reply to someone's message on their talk page, rather than yours. So after this, if you write a reply here, I won't notice, because your talk page won't be on my watchlist. Best to leave future messages on my talk page then. :) You don't need to copy over what I've written because I will remember, or if I forget I can easily check.

cheers! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Orphan links?

Hi Wayne, in the Gallery "orphan" actually only refers to the image on the Commons. This means these images are not in any categories or on any articles/galleries in the Commons. It's important that images are categorised here so that other people are able to find them when searching. So if you just add some categories, they will be fixed up. On the Gallery page there is a link to Common Sense, which is a tool to help you find suitable categories if you're having trouble thinking of any (it's only a starting point, though).

I couldn't see any images in your Gallery that were tagged delete, perhaps they have since been deleted?

BTW I had a look at Image:Wfa042.jpg and it seems to have conflicting tags on it. If it's PD-Canada, then you shouldn't use the copyrightedfreeusetag. Just use the PD-Canada tag directly.

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you are right. Leave the drop-down list alone and just manually type in your license. But make sure you put it so that it shows up, ie. type {{PD-Canada}}. If you type {{tl|PD-Canada}} then it will just make a link to the template instead of actually including it like you want. The same with the deletion requests - the reason they didn't show up is because you just linked to the template instead of including it directly.

Why do you want the images deleted? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

please place your pictures in a category or a gallery

Hello - thank you for providing images to the wikimedia commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the commons should be useful to all users of wikimedia projects - this is possible only if the images can be found by other people. To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should either place the images on topic pages (galleries) or put the images directly into a category, or do both. To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help. You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files here: Gallery

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There is a large number of completely unsorted images on the commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do! Thank you. -- gildemax 18:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:JohnKuseSaunders2.jpg deletion

Hi Wayne, sorry I took a while to look into this, can you give a link to the file with the correct name? I couldn't find it in your Gallery. thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted them now. One of the reasons it took so long for them to be deleted was because you didn't provide a link to the correctly-named file. Admins are not going to delete perfectly good images if the only thing wrong with them is the name and it hasn't been reuploaded yet! In the future you can use {{Badname}} for such requests; it's not necessary to list them on COM:DEL. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Western Fair Photo

I can delete any duplicates you've uploaded by mistake, but one thing I can't do is read your mind. I couldn't find any such duplicates in your Gallery, so please give me links like this: [[:Image:Example.jpg]] --> Image:Example.jpg

Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right that there are often many fantastic photos here that are not in Wikipedia articles, it's quite a shame! It's great that you are interested in helping make those connections. I know it is quite a steep learning curve, so if you have any questions about how to do something, you can ask on my talk page or on the Commons:Help desk. BTW, do you know about the Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life? It's probably perfect for you! pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

OK, there is a difference between the article/gallery Scouting and the Category:Scouting. To put images in the gallery, you have to edit that page directly. To make images appear in the category, you have to add this line to each such image:

[[Category:Scouting]]

Does it make sense? Let me know if it's still not clear or not working. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Anchomanes_giganteus0.jpg

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.--Orgullomoore

I didn't load this is the first place I only deleted the attached category as there was no image in the file. I just tried to upload a replacement identical photo into the above file but that didn't work, so the whole thing should be deleted. WayneRay 02:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Rotating

This is my photo, & I can see nothing wrong with it. It doesn't need rotation. I wonder why someone would put it in this category - must be a mistake, or perhaps they didn't understand the perspective. I have removed it from the category. Thanks for pointing this out GrahamBould 18:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Genus categories

Hi, re Category:Crassula, we don't want every species in both family and genus, it make the family categories too large, and you also lost the genus cat sort, which is useful to find a species when a genus cat gets large. Stan Shebs 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I realized I had done that by mistake and was going to go back and correct the mistake, as well I have to put in the Header information for the new articles that had Genus and species etc above the pics. I will be doing that soon. Is that what you meant by the cat sort ? WayneRay 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Adding links to species articles

I don't see the point to adding a link to a species article to an image of that species. If it is in the article, the article will appear in the list of the pages that link the image. If it's not in the article, the link is somewhat misleading.--Curtis Clark 13:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hegi pictures

Hello. Your work on pics in Category:Botanical illustrations is certainly appreciated, and some more categories like this would help there. -- Ayacop 08:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I accidently changed your note about Cat Botany to the above!! I just added three new Botanist Illustrators and had 746 images by Sturm and it got ruined, what a waste of time but I will have to re do the whole article, What do you think so far? WayneRay 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Well, what can I say, that's quite some feat, and the Sturm has probably the most but Blanco will also have nearly 500 when he's done. Would it help if I put the pics in some category already on upload? In the meantime, there were 40 more, so the question is somewhat late, I admit. Is there a tool to extract regexed file names from the Contributions List? -- Ayacop 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Botanical illustrations definitely looks better now! Just a question: Does it really make sense to produce circular category references (Category:Botany in Category:Botanical illustrations and vice versa etc.? --Ulf Mehlig 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Taubert and Brandis books and ...

Wayne, you were asking what books you may have missed. See Image:Mucuna pruriens Taub131b.png. Do you have that already? The pics have all "Taub" as substring, and live under Category:Fabaceae. Also, you may have missed the Brandis pictures, with "Bra" the substring, example Image:Phyllanthus emblica Bra52.png. Maybe it's best to look for them under my contributions. -- Ayacop 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you're missing the Nordens Flora, pics with the substring "nf" like Image:Zostera marina nf.jpg, but that was not my work, so you can't search my contributions for them. That's a lot! -- Ayacop 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Me again. There were many books but most of the big are taken care of now, with the notable exceptions of Moore's ferns (example Image:Cystopteris spp Moore46.png) and Pohl's Brazilian flora (example Image:Augusta lanceolata Pohl101.png, upload not finished), both my contributions. All the others from me are too small to be valuable targets. -- Ayacop 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 69 pics under Moore and 229 under the publisher Stuber, so which is the best way to go about it, I think listing the book title on the Cat Illustrations page instead of the illustrators, also the others I couldn't find any pics and one was listed under Sturm WayneRay 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Duplicated article

Hi. You have created an article twice. Johan Ernst Gunnerus and Johann Ernst Gunnerus, error in N letter. Cheers. --Emijrp 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I remember I was going too fast and left out or put in a letter. I should have relegated it to delete, I will fix it WayneRay 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

When this happens (and it does for all of us at times) it can be a good idea to turn the wrong one into a redirect. In this case, it's actually practical with one, since Norwegian names did not get a fixed spelling until 1925 and until then were spelled any way it suited people (my great-great-great grandfather's name, Kristoffer, was spelled in at least eight different ways in the church registers over the years). The wrong spelling gets 155 hits on Google, including some on university library sites, so chances are that someone else will make the same mistake.I've turned it into a redirect now. Cnyborg 00:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:MarystownNFLD.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MarystownNFLD.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. Jkelly 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to go to the Newfoundland Project page silly goose, there is the explination and copyright, It may have been accidently missed on the pic, which is the town emblem and permission was given to the uploader WayneRay 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

What Newfoundland project page? Do you mean a page at en:wikipedia? Would you mind fixing it so that I don't have to hunt it down? Jkelly 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry Project page WayneRay 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Image:Bactris spp Ørsted.png

Hello Wayne, you removed the categories Category:Botanical illustrations and Category:Arecaceae from Image:Bactris spp Ørsted.png. Bactris is a palm tree (i.e., family Arecaceae) – shouldn't these categories be preserved? Unfortunately, there is no article for the genus Bactris so far ... all the best, --Ulf Mehlig 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Augusta Thorman, illustrator in Costa Rica and Nicaragua 1846-1848 WayneRay 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

I put that picture in the article you gave me. The other illustrations in Augusta Thorman, illustrator in Costa Rica and Nicaragua 1846-1848 also show palms, and I've put them in Category:Arecaceae; one could put the whole article in that category but I do not know whether she exclusively depicted palm trees (title of the book looks as if the work had a broader scope). BTW, I am not sure whether giving a link the article below the license tag is conventional – the information which article uses the picture is appended automatically, anyway. All the best! --Ulf Mehlig 07:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I realize I shuldnt put the link in the photograph but, that is the only way I know if a speciaes or article exists or if I have to create one. Links can and should ve been removed later . How else can we find missing things if there is no link? WayneRay 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Do not remove the categories

Please do not remove the categories from the pages. And what's wrong with these categories?-- aka 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Photographs that are already in an Article such as the Arboretum ay Tesárske Mlyňany do not need Duplicate photographs in various other places. The link should be to the largest Category, therefore the Arboretum should be the link in the country Category as you already have Category:Cities and villages in Slovakia and Category:Slovakia, but the individual photos should not be randomly placed in Cat = Landscapes or Cat = Plants etc where i found them. The Taxonomic classification should hold from the lesser to the greater. Commons does not need duplicates, the search should be made in the major categories not the articles. I will put this message on your Talk page as well. WayneRay 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

EVERY page should have a category. You just removed them. If an individual image shows a landscape, then its OK to put this into the categorie with this name too. Please undo your mistakes. And don't put this message on my page, because I'm watching this one. -- aka 19:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was told basically by others that if there are enough photographs for an article, then link that name in "Landscapes" and put all the photographs in there. Not in the Category page at the bottom. There shouldnt be photos in Categories only in articles WayneRay 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

In the Article Tesárske Mlyňany there are exact duplicate photos that are in the Category Category:Slovakia which contains the article. These duplicate photos should be removed in the Category as they exist already in the article, Do you see what I mean. WayneRay 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Yes, and here you are right. The advantages and disadvantages of categories has been discussed many times before and unfortunately there is no consense yet. I know what you are trying to do of course. I'm not sure whether all Tesárske Mlyňany images will be landscape photos. If this is true, then adding the landscape category to this article is OK. But at the moment I wrote this above this page was not included in the landscape category, so you removed information.

But removing all the categories from a page as you did this in Rubus illecebrosus is clearly wrong, do not do this again. Thank you for your effort, but please think twice before you change something ;) -- aka 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

apologies then. I have been working 2-3 hours a day for two weeks cleaning up things. So explain to me, why there is a Category Rubus and an Article Rubus both with almost similar information? So I should change article Rubus back to Category Rubus in all the photos, Is this correct and i will make the corrections. WayneRay 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

The common way is to have a category for each family and pages for the species. Usually we do not have something for the genus itself. But if we need something in a case, then this must be a category, because we sort the species pages below this category. So, if we need a Rubus place, then this must be a category too, because the species pages like Rubus illecebrosus are even "below" it - they are sorted into this category.

I think the best and most common way is to remove the Rubus page, put the content into the Rubus category and sort the rubus species articles (=pages) into this category. -- aka 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will see what I can do after this wekend, I have to much to do, creating new articles for plant species with no links and finishing up Category:Botanical illustrations which is my main effort. Thank for the constructive criticism, appreciated. WayneRay 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Image:KoreachildrenWPC.jpg

Considering the similarity in the name of the photographer and your username, it looks as if the license of this photo is fine, but could you please add a line to explain why you have the right to publish Captain Ray's photo under the PD-license? That could save you from the hassle of a deletion request later if someone doesn't make the connection. Cnyborg 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seed page

Hi Wayne - nice gathering of lots of seed pics; however, it is getting rather huge (ages to load even with broadband, it would be a nightmare for anyone on dial-up), and the pics also need captions with their identity (scientific name) at the least, and some sort of indexing, preferably spreading them over two or three sub-pages to make access easier. Any ideas? I'll be happy to help out when a format is decided - MPF 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've just started with adding a few names for captions, I'll do some more later - MPF 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have over-written your start on alphabet listing - ooops! - MPF 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ok I will go make a cup of tea website WayneRay 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

YOu did a fst great job, check in later after I finish the alpha list and we'll organize, Thanks WayneRay 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Thanks! I'm off out for a couple of hours so carry on, I'll not create any more edit conflicts! - MPF 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agastace foenicleum

Hello,

In my opinion, this page has a bad name. The correct name would be Agastache foeniculum. --Juiced lemon 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, a new replacement image was uploaded and the misspelled article tagged for deletion WayneRay 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

categories

Hello Wayne, I think you will have to think about your understanding and usage of categories a bit. E.g., in Amorpha fruticosa, you added the cat Fabaceae. This is useless as the article is in Amorpheae which is in Faboideae which is in Fabaceae. This applies to other articles too. I'll change that myself. -- Ayacop 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I thought I was doing ok, it's good to get the corections however, I try to look at the main page similar species are on to get the appropriate category, I will try harder to be more observant. I think for that particular one I may have used an old edition of Exotica. Thnks again WayneRay 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Dangerous spiders

hi wayne,

i removed the categories on the page Dangerous spiders and marked it for deletion. This page has come up several times yet, and I don't think there's a good purpose for it, hopefully some day it will be gone for good... thx for the categorization work, i've done something like this on the spider section some time ago, i know it's a lot of work :) --Sarefo 23:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for wikifying and linking in the lonicera japonica photo! I'll be uploading a bunch more today, but don't usually get to that part until evening, when I have more time (it often takes a while to upload, so I just do that when I'm only at the keyboard a few minutes). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It takes me about 10 seconds to create an artuicle gallery. I use a program called type it in [ TypeItIn.com ] and I place all the forms and information I need in there and with the press of one button I can put in 1 or 100 words in a split second!! If you like i will leave it to you to put your own photos in a gallery article if you like WayneRay 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Oh, please feel welcome to do whatever you like with the images... that's why I upload them :). I just didn't want you to think I was too lazy to do the steps 2/3/4/etc.

About 10 more incoming today if you want to watch my contribs. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for moving the biographical text of my entries to the discussion page. It was an elegant and simple solution to what had been an argumentative problem. I appreciate all the time it took to do it, and thanks for doing it while I was banned, or recovering from being banned, over this very problem. Previously the text was being deleted, or the entire entries were being deleted. Thanks to you I only lost a dozen or so out of a hundred entries. Some of the original images are no longer extant, and I only had the scans. Now I make sure I back up the archive at Google photos and the Google blog (so I can add the text). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I also tried to put the articles on Wikipedia, where they should have been in the first place and they were voted for deletion. So I went and put the text in the Talk section. Thanks for your appreciation. I also, you will notice, made some major Category links on a few of the pages as there were very few, but some important and interesting information. The vote is still out on having Genealogy on Commons and Wikipedia so be careful next time. Or give me a call. WayneRay 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Euphorbia milii

Hello Wayne, I've got pretty confused about the movement of the unknown Euphorbia milii hybrids from Euphorbia milii to Category:Unidentified Euphorbia. These plants are only not exact identified, hence their particular title, but certainly belong to Euphorbia milii where they have been placed. Hope you don't resent a reverting of your movement. Ies 07:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi and no problem, I probably thought they were in the wrong place and didn't realize they were millii. I am fascinated by Euphorbia and have grown exotic species over the years, especially when I ran the Estate Greenhose for E. P. Taylor in the 70's. I am grateful you have put up such a wonderful collection. WayneRay 17

57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Epiphyllum ackermannii

One of the most confused cacti names. However, your image Epiphyllum ackermannii WPC.jpg has nothing to do with that name. Your image is some kind of Disocactus/x Disophyllum hybrid. The true Epiphyllum ackermannii, now classified as Disocactus ackermannii, is very rare in cultivation and was rediscovered in nature rather recently. It is characterised by its violet stigma lobes and red tepals. I will recommen the page Epiphyllum ackermannii to be removed and replace your image. Epibase

Yes if you say so. From the look of the photograph's surroundings, I took the photo at the University of Toronto Botany Greenhouse in 1985. I am sure it was labeled??? WayneRay 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Images by Secar one

Hi WayneRay, I fear you have been misinformed on the images by Secar one. They are scans from a book and the current sourcing is falsified, ufortunately. Siebrand 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,I was under the assumption from correspondence with him that these were from a large collection of his and another fellow. I will stop editing them WayneRay 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

I'll try and look up the edits on nl.wp in which he states the above. Back later. Siebrand 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker%3ASiebrand&diff=5861009&oldid=5859230 is where he gives the book from which the images were taken and the (insufficient) permission there currently is. The Full discussion (in Dutch) can be read on http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:Siebrand&oldid=5997125#licenties. We have invested a lot of time in this user on nl.wp and he's constantly trying to bend the rules. Please beware of being mislead and investing a lot of time leading nowhere. Siebrand 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

ToL Newsletter issue 1

The inaugural newsletter of the Tree of Life project has been published. You are welcome to read the newsletter, comment on its contents, frequency and form, or unsubscribe by putting your name on my talk page.

Teun Spaans 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Church.JPG

Did you intend to nominate Image:Church.JPG for speedy deletion or to complete the deletion process? --Iamunknown 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I found the original it was a Deletion request from a while back, I uploaded the new file with an extension and the good file is there called ChurchWPC.JPG so yes please delete it and there are several others for speedy deletion in my Gallery so do them as well. Orphan listings are photos on Wikipedia articles and not on Media Commons WayneRay 13:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Done. I found only one other. --Iamunknown 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Tire money

Hi,

I see that you uploaded several Canadian Tire money images. Could you please categorize them next time. --Chochopk 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate files

When you mark files as duplicates you need to write the nameof the file they are duplicates of. Instead of only writing {{duplicate}}, you should write {{duplicate|<filename here>}}. /82.212.68.183 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I could never figure that out, I usually just put the other file name on the same edit page but I remember two I did not, WayneRay 01:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

• Image:Gießkanne.JPG should be completed, thanks. Michelet-密是力 05:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks it has been properly labelled now WayneRay 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:gallerypreview.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

• /

//

Image:Jeruk.jpg

Wayne, euh... I know my picture is categorized as orphan, but it is not seed. It is oranges (fruit) -- it how oranges looks in Indonesia, their skin is green, but inside is oranges... I'm sorry I haven't had the time to categorize them yet, I will later, sometime in the near future perhaps :D Serenity 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I realized that and I too am compiling images in the Seed category to eventually create relevant article galleries, so the photo would have gone with actual citrus seed photos. Thanks for the note WayneRay 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Aegilops seed

Hi WayneRay, despite of the image names and descriptions the so called Aegilops seed images like Image:Aegilops cylindrica seeds.jpg and Image:Aegilops triuncialis seeds.jpg don't show seeds at all but dry flowers that may or may not bear invisible remaining seeds deep within. Go to the original source pages to see that the word <seed> isn't mentioned anywhere. The Wikipedia image names and descriptions only base on the – wrong – interpretation of the uploader. Plase take a look at Image:Weizenkoerner.jpg and Image:Roggenkoerner.jpg to learn what Poaceae seeds really look like. Greetings --Ies 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you could have replaced it and put it back in Measured seeds and as such, it is a seed head which is good enough for educational purposes and another thing Taxanomic classification is fine for genus and species and Gallery to sub category to category, but in the case of Seeds, it is not applicable and is wherever it will be best seen and found so I disagree with you guys on putting Seeds and other galleries there, so I am going to have to ask you to STOP once again. This is an educational and taxonomic website and I am placing things in easy to find main categories that are not genus species WayneRay 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

SVP

Hi, my english is so good as your french ! Botanical names are now under the french names. Denbert. 16 june 2007.

Thanks I wasn't sure LOL I haven't used French in many years Merci WayneRay 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Please link images

Hi.

You just add a line in my discussion page, saying that my flags were on the Commons:Project Nuvola 2.0+ page. I knew, i inserted them one by one yesterday, I can't manage to undersand what you meant by you sentence on my page. (without signature :) )

Thanks.

Min's 07:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was going through the Latest Files and didn't see your page. I meant that someone had asked you to categorize the images and I didn't see any galleries or categories, the message was for the other person who left you a message, my apologies for any confusion,

Acanthopanax seiboldianus

Hi! The modern name for it is Eleutherococcus sieboldianus. I think these two articles should be merged somehow... Doronenko 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you doing?

You've been removing categories from a very large amount of photos, with the edit comment "removing duplicate image". None that I saw were duplicates, so please explain. I'll likely be rolling all these edits back shortly.--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yep, I figured out what you were doing (good stuff) :-). Please be a bit more accurate in your edit comments though. When an administrator sees "duplicate image" in an edit comment, he/she will generally assume you mean that there are 2 versions of an image somewhere, one of which needs deleting. A better comment for this would be "remove higher-order category, image is in a more specific gallery" (a mouthful, but I assume your browser has auto-fill). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I also use Moved to article or moved to appropriate location, Thanks for the other comment I will put in my auto fill WayneRay 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Sounds good. By the way, rather than removing the categories, you might consider just modifying them to the species category instead. See this message on someone else's talk. While it's certainly a matter of debate, having both categories and links can help those who prefer seeking images through categories rather than on galleries. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi WayneRay. I have uploaded at least one of the photos affected by your category removal. I was surprised by your edit, as the image is not a duplicate, however as it appear from the discussion above, you wre really removing a higher order category as the image is in a more specific gallery. I'm pretty new here, but I did take the time to read the policies regarding categories and galleries before linking to my images, and as I read the guidelines both policies are accepted - albeit debated. That is, besides putting the image in the most specific available gallery you can also add it to the most specific available category. There is a phrase saying that in a future update it is hoped that the software will automatically handle these things. Is there a another poilcy, which I might have overlooked which details that linking to higher order categories when a lower level gallery is available is discouraged or have I simply misuderstood the guidelines? Slaunger 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again WayneRay. Thank you for your nice and balanced replies concerning this on my discussion page. I can actually see your point in only putting the species in the species-specific galleries and not simultaneously add the species in overlying genera categories. It makes sense. I guess it is only relevant to add media in genera, families, etc, if they actually relate to general features of the specific category. Like, e.g., a photo containing all species in a genera, or a drawing showing generic features of a leaf in that genera, etc. So, I will actually go in and remove similar higher-level categories from my other plant images, since they are all in species-specific galleries. When I first read the instructions for adding categories my first thought was that I better add as many relevant categories as possible, but now I also see the other side of that coin. Thank you. Slaunger 02:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing categories

Greetings. I noticed you've been removing categories from images (example). I certainly understand removing the genus category "Sisyrinchium", since it was also categorized by species. But by taking out the species category "Sisyrinchium montanum", you're removing some functionality. Some Wikipedias prefer to link to the Commons category, not the Commons article, since new images are more likely to be added to categories than articles. Just thought I'd let you know. All the best, Quadell (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: STBY

Hi Wayne,

Yes, I installed the Gallerypreview function on your Javascript file for you. You can definitely advise other users to install it by going to MediaWiki talk:Gallerypreview.js and following those instructions. If they have problems doing so, they can ask for assistance at the Commons:Help desk.

BTW using categories/galleries for file organisation is a contentious issue at Commons and is not really resolved. So I wouldn't push the issue too far. Some people prefer using only categories, some prefer using only galleries, some prefer a mix. The most important thing is that all files have at least one or the other.

As for Commons:Picture of the day (POTD), currently only images that have gained Featured picture status can become POTD. I suggest first putting your images through Commons:Quality Images -- this is for user-created images. By doing that first you will be able to get useful feedback on your photography techniques. If they pass through that, you can try putting them up at Featured picture candidates (FPC). If they pass through that, they will become a featured picture, and then they can become POTD. But FPC can be a difficult process to pass through, so I suggest going through Quality images first. Let me know if you have any problems. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW it's no bother at all, I'm happy to be able to help :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Category

I understand why you delete a category Category:Brest, France from Image:Battle of Brittany - Brest 02.jpg, Image:Battle of Brittany - Brest 03.jpg, Image:Battle of Brittany - Brest 06.jpg. I don understand why you delete that category from Image:Battle of Brittany - Brest 04.jpg - on that image is port in Brest. Where shuld be this image when not in Brest ?

I don`t understand why you delete Category:Battle of Brittany from that 4 images. That foto shows fights in that battle. So where if not here ? --Pmgpmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete categories

Per Commons:Categories: The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. Both gallery and category systems should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for creation of gallery for Vaccinium uliginosum

Hi Wayne. I've noticed that you are very active in adding plant images to relevant galleries and/or create new when relevant. Could you create a gallery for Vaccinium uliginosum, I'm not a botanics expert, so I'll rather that a pro does it? I would like to have this image added to the gallery. In advance, thank you! Slaunger 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a typo in my original image upload and did not realize that the gallery is already created. I'll add the image myself to the gallery. Sorry for the confusion. Slaunger 20:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and for adding the image. You were faster than me. d(^!^)b Slaunger 00:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spelling on Gallery page

Hi, I notified the user who runs the Gallery tool. I'm not sure if he's the one who actually controls those notices though. thanks --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Urgent copyright notice

The following Canadian Tire money are deemed copyright violations while the earliest note was introduced in 1958 while Canadian organizational copyright lasts for 50 years since publication:

• Image:Canadian Tire Money03.jpg
• Image:Canadian Tire Money05.jpg
• Image:Canadian Tire Money02.jpg
• Image:Canadian Tire Money06.jpg
• Image:Canadian Tire Money01.jpg
• Image:Canadian Tire Money04.jpg

Please also note that you do not legally make works PD-self while scanning others' copyrighted works, so if you cannot prove that you have proper permission from Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. to show them here, they have to be deleted. However, you may still claim fair use in English Wikipedia but not here.--Jusjih 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Great I never thought about that, Go ahead and delete if you can. I will contact an Admin to do it if you cant. Apologies to the corporaton.WayneRay 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Received your message while another admin deleted these. English Wikipedia article Canadian Tire money does have a fair use image showing reduced size of the notes. Reducing the size discourages counterfeiting. When you know the rule better it is all right.--Jusjih 14:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove categories

Categories are useful, their removal is disruptive. This issue is being discussed at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anti-category_crusade.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoher Schneeberg vs. Schneeberg

Hi! Thank you for your kind help at categorizing on my new photos! But I think Hoher Schneeberg ([[Category:Hoher Schneeberg]]) can be an other mountain. This website [1] shows it is in the Czech Republic, but that mountain where I take my photos is in Austria, see this page: Schneeberg (Alps). Best wishes! --Beyond silence 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Botanical Photos

You don't have any botanical links to your plant photos?? even though you have botanical names on some of them, Please create articles or put them in the proper botanical categories so someone can use them, Thanks WayneRay 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Yes, thank you. I planned on getting everything up and finding the right places for them, but I had a gap due to dinner. I will have the categories up soon. Also your gallery is quite nice! -- IvanTortuga 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations concerning format of plant species articles

Dear WayneRay. I've noticed your active role in the Tree of Life project with creating species articles and add relevant images in those. I regularly upload images of arctic plants, which I currently photograph in Greenland, and some of these do not have a species article. I have created a few new ones but I am in doubt about the proper format in such a species article. I have noticed some variances in the existing species articles. Some have a taxobox of some kind in the top with interwikilinks to genera, family etc. I think they are useful. Others have a template where the species name is given in other languages in the top of the article. Do you know if there is some kind of consensus on a recommended format of a plant species gallery page? (I have not been able to find one.)

I made my own basic one from one's I have found:

Species

species name

Family

name

Illustrations

[[:Category: ]]

However if there is a full header I copy and paste the more information provided into those galleries that need the information, but it is not necessary as that information is usually in the Category

I think there are pros and cons with the additional template infoboxes. The nice thing is that you immediately see other information which may be relevant. On the other hand, the hill to climb for creating a new species article becomes higher and there is more maintenance of redundant information, which may be readily availbale via interwikilinks to language-specific wikipedias - or concerning taxonomy ti Wikispecies. The latter reminds me: Do you know how to interwiki link to Wikispecies from commons?? I have never seen such an interwikilink in a commons species article, but I think it could be useful and relevant for at least some of the species I have photodocumented. -- Slaunger 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No I don't know any unless it is similar to the commons link on wikipedia

Wikispecies has an entry on:

WayneRay/Archives01

Ok I see after I saved it that it works so use that {{}} template WayneRay 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

OK.I got that. Thank you! -- Slaunger 13:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing categories

Dear WayneRay, I have seen that you are very active in removing categories on image pages of others. This is just the opposite what an other user did, he added to many, many photos of plants I had uploaded a link to a category, which he often has created himself. I suggest not to spend time to remove categories as others may add them again. It may be better to use the time to add translations of the latin names in English, French, German, etc. on pages about plants and to add links to wiki's if not present yet. I usually also check on the other wiki's whether there are links to Commons. Best regards, --Wouter 08:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Adenium

Hi. What's the point in removing categories from one species and leaving all the others unchanged??? Lycaon 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There were identical categories and articles with duplicate photos and information, I am simplifying things, the superfulous categories were being mass quick deleted and a few wwere missed. Only galleries should be in the main category. WayneRay 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

There is no redundancy. Some people look up via article, others via category. Please leave as is. Thanks. Lycaon 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was already in the Category of the family name, there is no need to have an additional category by the species name along with the species galery. Simplify simplify. WayneRay 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Image:Badges03.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Badges03.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gros_Morne_Park5.JPG

---

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. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:Postcard_Queen_Elizabeth_Charles_Anne.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Postcard_Queen_Elizabeth_Charles_Anne.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Rosenzweig 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Scout logos

As these logos, patches, MBs, etc are copyrighted, they cannot be on wikicommons. YOu could use them on en.wiki under a legit fair use though.Rlevse 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why hasn't someone from the two Scouting organizations put up examples of their badges and insignias??? Just remove all these notices and as previously discussed just go and delete them. TOtherwise contact Scouts Canada or USA and ghet their permission or put a different tag in each photo. You don't have to keep coming through me. WayneRay 23:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Wayne Ray

Image:Badges01.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Badges01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Badges02.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Badges02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Badges04.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Badges04.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camp Obasateeka.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Camp Obasateeka.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camp Obasateeka1970.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Camp Obasateeka1970.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camp Obasateeka1971.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Camp Obasateeka1971.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve 02.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve 02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1959.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1959.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1960.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1960.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1963.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1963.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1964.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Haliburton Scout Reserve1964.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oriole District1959.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Oriole District1959.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oriole District Winter Camp1960.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Oriole District Winter Camp1960.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oriole District CampOree1963.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Oriole District CampOree1963.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oxtrail Scout Camp1959.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Oxtrail Scout Camp1959.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oxtrail Scout Camp1960.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Oxtrail Scout Camp1960.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Woodland Trails1968.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Woodland Trails1968.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Rlevse 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Category query

Hi WayneRay, I don't understand why you did this?. Please use an edit summary - I'm undoing it. Cygnis insignis 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gallery is already in Malvaceae, there is no need for duplication of a photo in the category if the photo is in a gallery connected to the higher up category, it is just a waste of space and duplication. WayneRay 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

It would be more productive to discuss it, for obvious reasons. You didn't use an edit summary or let me know. The category is more useful than the gallery. What was the outcome of the previous discussions on this topic - as above? Cygnis insignis 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) [Insert thread from my page] 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of space and duplication: your page William Jackson Hooker (1785-1865) and William Jackson Hooker. Our time is more valuable than server's cycles. Regardless of that, it is nice to meet someone doing similar work. Cygnis insignis 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And to you. On this issue I am undecided, so I did both. I expect there will be an enormous amount of Malvaceae, a subcat for Hibiscus would be inevitable I would have thought. I rarely get involved in categories, but taxonomic is pretty straightforward and very useful. I will check out your work next time I'm on. Regards– Cygnis insignis 23:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)