User:WayneRay/Archives02

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/Archives02

• Original Talk Page is User talk:WayneRay

Epilobium latifolium - should it be Chamerion latifolium?

Hi WayneRay.

Being a taxo ignorant and having an old book for species identification I usually double-check the latin names of the plants I identify using ITIS to make sure what is the officiel one. I then use this name in the name for my images and as the name of the species gallery to which it shall be added. I did this for a plant which is specified as Chamaenerion latifolium in my old book - I think it is called Dwarf fireweed in English - the national flower of Greenland. Anyway, I checked the name in ITIS and noticed that the official name is actually Chamerion latifolium. Then I discovered that there were no species gallery of that name on Commons, which surprised me as I would be surprised if my photos of that plant are the first on Commons. Anyway after searching around I noticed that there is another species gallery with the name Epilobium latifolium and the photos here match my plants and it is also a synonym in ITIS for Chamerion latifolium, but not an accepted name. Assuming ITIS can be considered as an authoritative source (?) I am therefore inclined to think that the existing Epilobium latifolium species gallery ought to be renamed to Chamerion latifolium. Also a Chamerion genus category shall be created under the existing Onagraceae family cat. Do you agree?

I think there is a similar problem with the Epilobium angustifolium species gallery. The official ITIS name is Chamerion angustifolium (more specifically the angustifolium subspecies). Do you agree?

If you agree on these points, will you do the necessary corrections including redirects of the Epilobium synonyms (There more hits on the Epilobium name on Google than the Chamerion)? --Slaunger 07:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I am aware that Chamaenerion latifolium is wrong - old misspelling. However, according to the authoritative ITIS database Epilobium latifolium is currently not an accepted name. It is a synonym for the accepted name Chamerion latifolium. I am therefore not convinced that it is correct to keep the Epilobium latifolium with its current name. You mentioned a plant database referring to Epilobium latifolia as a correct name. Which one and is it authoritative? I have added a section on the talk page for Epilobium latifolium with my observations referring to our discussions. -- Slaunger 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Innaropriate Categories

Hello, you recently removed some categories from one or more of my uploads. You stated in your edit summary, "removed innaropriate Categories", however, you did not explain why the categories are inappropriate for the arwork in question. Category:2006 - The pictures were taken in 2006. Category:1985 births - The subject was born in 1985. Category:Living people - The subject is a person who is still living. Category:People by alphabet - The subject has a first and last name, with a {{DEFAULTSORT}} template included. Category:Adult models from the United States - The subject is an adult model from the United states. Please understand that Wikimedia Commons is not censored, including the artwork in question. Please reply to this message on my talk page. Thank you. Taric25 09:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an order for all photos on Commons. YOur Talk page is on wikipedia so don't put photos here at all please. A photo goes in a Gallery article, the article goes in a Category. It is only necessary to link the main Category to a category elsewhere, NOT THE IMAGES. Your main Category is your name. Only this name category should be lnked to Adult models, or Births, or Porn stars etc etc. You are placing images in upper level Categories and this is not allowed or accepted by most, only a few. In your pphoto images you should only have one Category, the one with your name. In your name Category you can make the other links. Does this make sense?WayneRay 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Thank you for your reply. You write, "Your main Category is your name. Only this name category should be lnked to Adult models, or Births, or Porn stars etc etc." That would make sense, except you also removed all the categories from my name, Category:Taric Alani. Would you please explain? Thanks! Taric25 10:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I have put your name category in all the main Categories you had listed. That is all that is necessary. When people see your name they can go to the appropriate Category, the other photos of other people shold be removed as well and put in appropriate articles or categories but that is a lot of work and not my area of expertise. Hope this helps you get better organized WayneRay 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Thank you for your help. Taric25 10:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikimedia Commons is not censored, including the artwork in question. Please reply to this message on my talk page. I was not implying that the photos were innapropriate I only meant the placement of the photos was innapropriate, Categories or gallery articles should be the only appropriate thing in a higher level Category. I think you understand this now, I just saw the note. WayneRay 10:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Again the photos

Again you have placed photos in categories where all you have to do is place your name category? Go to the other categories you put them in and you will also see names in either articles or subcategories, that is all you need is your name category, put the photos in your name category only please WayneRay 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Please understand these are different categories entirely, and they only apply for images that do not apply to all images of me. For example, not all the pictures in Category:Taric Alani feature autofellatio. That is why I have only added the two that feature autofellatio to Category:Autofellatio. Taric25 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Public domain or GFDL?

Dear Wayne Ray, thanks a lot for uploading and sharing that many great photographs! However, I've noticed a little problem with some of your uploads: In the permission line you wrote your work is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), but the license tag says you release them into the public domain. Do you intend to release them into the public domain or do you intend to license you work under the GFDL? --Matt314 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, if the image is under PD you don't need to put the line there because GFDL is stricter than PD. --Matt314 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorising my pictures

Dear Sir,

As asked, I have categorised most of my pictures, but something is apparently wrong because I don't find them in the catergories I have selected.

Please advise, Réginald alias Meneerke bloem.

Thank you for your message. I have one question. You write If you go to the edit part of the article gallery use the text template I have there and you can create an article if there is none. Please advise how I can create a new article when there is none. Best regards, Meneerke bloem.

Category addition

Will do (I didn't know we had a cat for that). Thanks for fixing the other ones! (BTW: I actually own a dead-tree 3 volume copy of that flora, and think it's absolutely wonderful that PLANTS has digitized them for us so nicely). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another by-the way: another flora I often use is "The Flora of West Virginia". If you are familiar with this, do you know anything about its current copyright status? I believe it was written in the 1930s, but not sure if it was commissioned by the USDA or if it was privately funded. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another :). I'm pretty sure I've downloaded others over the past year or so... I'll look through my contribs. Do you happen to know anyone with a 'bot who could raid the whole site? I think they have all of the images from that flora floating around there, but doing it manually would be a major chore. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I did 412 Britton and Brown images in 38 minutes WayneRay 12:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Category:Kigelia and other categories

Hi WayneRay, I wonder why you completely ignored plant kindom's tree strucure as well as the already existing article Kigelia africana and set a competing category direct to the root of the plant kingdom at Category:Plantae. Similar with

• Category:Kleinhovia,
• Category:Samanea,
• Category:Spathodea,
• Category:Swietenia,
• Category:Tectona,
• Category:Terminalia and
• Category:Trema

that not at all belong direct to Category:Plantae. If you had a bad day I hope you're better know and eager to tidy up what you caused. Greetings, --Ies 12:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your page but now I remember this guy, he had 120 categories of birds and half that of butterflies that were blank categories he made up from the names. I put them all in Category:Birds and Category:Butterflies of India (I think) that's why I forgot to go back to correct the Plantae stuff, I just corrected three of them WayneRay 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

copyright

Please do not remove my copyright information under the gallery-images. As in GFDL section 4 specified every derived picture (a resized image falls is such derived work) must have appropriate copyright-information. Because the thumbnails do not have any EXIF-tags the GFDL license requires copyright information right under the image. Fabelfroh 16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I removed any Copyright information if I did it was a slip of the mouse in editing. I only removed the dead Category Links and the double images. All your Categories you made from the botanical names were a dead link, they went no where and no one would find them. Only a photo gallery is necessary or a Category by itself linked to the next highest taxanomic one not one in each. Apologies for the missing Copyright info I didnt mean to remove that.WayneRay 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Once again you removed the copyright notations from gallery pages. As I already told, this is a violation of section 4 of the GFDL for images. And besides, if you add a gallery of plant cells, do not put photos of capsulas in it [1]. Fabelfroh 05:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

LIsten You are not listening, No ONE in any photo gallery has put their name as a caption on a photograph, you are wrong, the copyright information is in the individual photograph in the summary section, GFDL is there and that is the Copyright information, not vanity displayed in the gallery, SO you stop doing it. Also they are the dead categories I only linked up and the galleries you already made??? I was cleaning them up, You are messy and vain WayneRay 06:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

May I citate from the GFDL: "D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document." When automatically generating thumbnails of images, wikipedia does not include EXIF data in them. In my case the EXIf data of the original file includes vital copyright information, wikipedia deletes that in the thumbnail. There must be an indication of copyright even for the thumbnail-image as the next part suggests: "E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.". The GFDL license originally was made for texts. So I suggest you stop your modifications for now and we take the discussion to the appropriate place here in wikicommons. Fabelfroh 07:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be mean, just in the two years I have been editing photos I have never or rarely seen anyone put their name as photographer under a botanical photo in a gallery, that is just vanity and the information, should anyone wish to search it, is in the photo itself, it is all there and is not needed under a thumbnail photo. If that were true you would have said, copyright by .... not Photo by .... More importantly you have dead categories all over the place, so best not to even create one unless you are going to make a link somewhere as I have done with Category:Plant cells WayneRay 07:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Ok. We have two different issues here. First one is the copyright-problem of the thumbnailed images that are automatically generated by the wikipedia system. We should discuss that one on the right place. The second problem is that one of the categories. Some months ago someone suggested to create categories for each organism. He created a bot that added categories automatically all over the place. Suddenly he stopped but lots of people (including me) took over the categories and added them to every new image they uploaded because it was said that this is "the future" of catalogization here. Now you come and are removing that categories. I do not have a problem with that. But every now and then someone comes and removes them just to realize that some weeks later someone changes them back. The only thing I care about is that the photo is in the correct category. You have put some photos (accidently or not) in the wrong category. The photo of the sporogone is a good example. That one is not a microscopic photo that shows plant cells. You may have a reason for all the category-changes. It would be nice if you could explain them to me so we both can avoid discussions about catalogization in the future. Fabelfroh 07:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I saw over 300 photos in the Plant cells main category, You had plant cells as well as botanical photos in your gallery articles and they were linked to plant taxanomic galleries, correct? I put your dead link categories in Cat: Plant cells as that seemed a major important thing you were doing. As it was a category and not a gallery I was going to remove the actual plant material and leave only the plant cells. In the Botanical galleries, I was reorganizing the list from Photo & Illustrations to become Photos / Plant cells / Illustrations, does this make sense? I know of this Bot and the problems it has caused with duplicating species and categories and photos sometimes appear in three or four locations with the same name, I hope he never comes back LOL WayneRay 07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Ok. Now the topic clears up. But what happens to the old categories the bot has created but have the same name as they would have in the category plant cells? Fabelfroh 07:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could see in yours they were originally Red dead linked and went nowhere. They are now in Plant cells only. The species gallery by the same name could or should be linked to that new Category so people can go to the plant photos. If we put another category link to the Botanical name it would appear in, lets say: Sphagnum Moss and Plant Cells or Reindeer Moss and Plant Cells. Does this make sense. The Bot created Categories will stay empty until we humans link them to something LOL WayneRay 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Ok. But leave the copyright notices for now. I will take that discussion to another place. Maybe the admins can make the EXIF-tags to appear correctly. Fabelfroh

Ok Thanks for the discussions and thanks for the fine photography. I will try to be better at my organizing. WayneRay 08:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

One more thing. When I'm uploading new photos that don't have any category in Plant cells or somewhere else what is the right thing to do? Fabelfroh 08:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are plant cell photos, what I would do to create a new Category page is type in the name Category:(new name) in the search bar on the left. The name will appear or should appear RED at the top of the results page, click on this new plant cell category name and in the EDIT function at the bottom of the page, put in Category:Plant cells and put your photos in the new category. If you do a search again for the same name it should appear blue color meaning you have a new existing category and a live link to plant cells. This can be dome for galleries or anything that does not already exist. If you type in a name and it appears Blue inthe results page of Search, then use the existing category or gallery. Make sense? WayneRay 08:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Hi Wayne,

It has always been Wikimedia Commons practice that having the image link to the image page which contains all the licensing and author information is sufficient recognition of the licenses we accept. If anyone wants to insist otherwise indeed it requires a big public discussion, at the Village Pump and/or on the mailing list. According to current practice images don't require captions attribution. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the generated thumbnails do not have any EXIF-tags and therefore lacking any copyright information. According to the GFDL every derived work of the original (and a thumbnail is exactly that) must have such information attached. Not removing the EXIF-data would be sufficient, otherwise it would be a licensing breach. I already ask a friend of mine (who is a lawer) to look into this but it'll be take some time. The problem here is that the GFDL originally was designed for text and not for images. I think that could make things a bit complicated. When I have an answer I'll take the discussion to Commons:Administrators noticeboard. Fabelfroh 20:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure a thumbnail (ie resizing) is a derivative work. I know crops are, but I hadn't heard that about thumbnails.

It may be very simple to make the thumbs have the same exif data attached. I will investigate. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I opened a bug report and I will start a discussion on the VP. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the bug was closed INVALID, so I suppose that answers that! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I got an answer. As always laywers don't say anything clearly. I hope you can understand my translation. Originally the GFDL was made for texts and not images. Though a digital image can be interpreted as a text too. The rgb-value of the pixels could represent letters so they form a word. If an image is been scaled down it could be interpreted as you would delete e.g. every second word in the text. 1. According to the GFDL that is not a violation as long as copyright information and the original owner and modifiers of the original are preserved. 2. Removing the EXIF information is possible as long as the modified image still contains a reference to the original copyright and ownership information. In a text like a poem it could be interpreted as if the name of the author that stands right behind the heading is being moved to the end of the text which is a reference. However it is not clear how the GFDL behaves when the referenced information don't exist anymore. 3. The GFDL does not permit any deletion of copyright or ownership information. If the thumbnail (a downsized image) doesn't have any copyright information left because they were deleted with the EXIF data a reference to the place with the information MUST be supplied. The fiddly detail here is not the thumbnail itself but the page that is generated with it in the browser. For example. If a user prints the html-output he would make a violation of the license since the printed page does not contain any copyright information anymore. In addition it is not clear if already the html-output inside the browser is a violation too. The thumbnail that lacks EXIF information itself as seen not within the context is a violation but embedded into a html-file that includes such information it is negated. However it is to be clarified whether a click on the image is enough or not since it is not obvious to the user/reader. Fabelfroh 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Commons:Village_pump#Is_removing_EXIF_data_violating_the_GFDL.3F. I think Cburnett makes some good points. I think we are obeying the spirit of the GFDL as well as we can within the circumstances, and that's without explicit credit captions. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Special:Uncategorizedcategories

Hi Wayne,

The Special pages like this one are only periodically updated, not instantly. That's why even if you fix them they will still be on the list for a while. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks. If they were created by accident you can mark them for speedy deletion. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go trough Special:Uncategorizedcategories, please be more careful and check your edits. For example Category:User ja-1 (and similar categories) are wrong placed in Category:Users, they should be in Category:User ja. Please review your edits to this categories. Also, a category can be redirected, so I have Category:Bobruiskaia Smirnova Street redirected to Category:Bobruiskaia Street instead of deleting.
You can find further information about categories at Commons:Categories, Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Categories and the section A file or page needs to be renamed or moved. Can this be done? at Commons:FAQ#Technical questions. --GeorgHH 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Great and thanks, I was maybe under the assumption that these uncategorized categores would never be seen as there was no link. I assumed someone like yourself who knew better would place them in a more appropriate category. I will look deeper into the individual areas and find better links. WayneRay 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Blanked Category:Metered Postage as a subcategory of Category:Canada Post

I am very sorry but I don't understand this edit. First, why should Category:Metered Postage be a subcategory of Category:Canada Post only? What about post in all other countries? Second, the category was previously blanked because there is already another category, Category:Postage meters, that is used for uploading all images that contain postage meters and examples of their usage. So, I am undoing your edit. --Michael Romanov 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and clarification. If you wish to upload images for Canada post, there is already Category:Post of Canada. But please don't use this category directly. Instead, use the following subcategories: Category:Covers of Canada, Category:Postcards of Canada, Category:Stamps of Canada, Category:Postage meters of Canada (to be created), Category:Postal stationery of Canada (to be created), etc. For reference, please see Category:Post of the United States. --Michael Romanov 05:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image request

Dear Wayne, I am looking for an image for the postal term "printed matter", which is "banderole" in French and a similarily pronounced Russian word "бандероль", as can be seen here. The image will be used for the appropriate Wikipedia articles. Since you are professionally affiliated with the post, can you upload such an image, please? --Michael Romanov 21:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps of ... County

Hi, quick request as I've also been working on the "maps of" categories & to keep it consistent: could you also add in the category for the county itself in the "Maps of ... County, State" categories? (random example of what I mean: Category:Maps of St. Clair County, Missouri) Thanks in advance! Deadstar (msg) 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll hold off for the moment (I just finished Missouri... there are map categories for all 116 counties...)

I'm not actually looking at what's in these categories, I assumed that whoever uploaded those images sorted them correctly. I was working off the Uncategorised categories too.

In my opinion, the category "Maps of Xyz County, ABC state" should always be an upper level category in the "Xyz County, ABC state" category.

Another question is whether it was wise to put the "maps of Xyz County, ABC state" in the "Maps of ABC state" or whether it would have been better to create a subcategory there too (one that says "Maps of counties in ABC State") as was done for Arizona for example) or whether that would be overkill. - I basically followed an example that I found & stuck with it.

Kind regards, Deadstar (msg) 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you want with the gallery preview? Deadstar (msg) 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah right :) I use something similar called "popups", which gives you the same info by just hovering over the image/category link. Can find the info for that if you want? I'll be going in about half an hour (back tomorrow), just to warn you.

In as far as categories are concerned, I think what I did in Missouri is the way it should be (IMHO) - All "maps of counties" linked to "maps of Missouri" & to their respective counties. I also did a search on en: to see how many counties there were & made sure to tick all of them off the list (I mean categories with only 1 image in them don't show up in the first 5000 uncategorised categories...). There usually are two "locator maps" cats too - I brought them to the top by adding |! after the cat. I think that's enough for people to find them.

Unfortunately, I am unsure when it comes to the images that are still stuck in the main "Maps of Missouri" cat - Maybe things like Image:Map_of_Missouri_highlighting_Adair_County.png should be better off in the "maps of Adair county" category? What do you think? They are all in Category:Missouri county locator maps already, so where they are now is unnecessary anyway. (so instead of "maps of missouri" and "county locator", they'd be in "county locator" and "maps of specific county"?)

I hope I make sense. Would that give you something to start on? If you're not sure either, we can always ask at the helpdesk or one of the other admins if they have better ideas?

Kind regards, Deadstar (msg) 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Was looking at clearing some images out of the "Missouri" cat, and it appears that the county locator images in there are all PNGs, and aare all superseded by SVGs (which are correctly categorised in the County Locator folder). I am in the process of labelling all of them with the correct cats + the superseded template - perhaps you come across those too.

Oh, and BTW, next time you run into the state Georgia, that is "Georgia (U.S. state)" here -- all the "Maps of XYZ County, Georgia" were sitting in Category:Georgia... all fixed now. Deadstar (msg) 16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Losing the indent. You said on my page (perhaps it's easier to keep it all here - I'll check back): "Ok as I see it, to get rid of the duplicate County maps at the bottom of the Category:Maps of Missouri and to keep the word flow of the names in order, I would create Category:Locator maps of counties in Missouri and put Cat:Missouri county locator maps in that one and leave Cat:Locator maps connected to Maps of Missouri. and place all the duplicates in there, Make sense?? I did that in Maryland maps page WayneRay 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)WayneRay "

Ah no. The existing Category:Maryland county locator maps is all you need, and that one needs to be categorised in Category:Maps of Maryland. The one you created is basically a duplicate of it, and there is no need for both. They now need to be merged as they contain the exact same type of maps. It is not needed to seperate the SVG from the PNG etc.

In Missouri, all the county locator maps are going to be in Category:Missouri county locator maps, and that's it. Nothing else needed. Deadstar (msg) 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You said Yes you are right, but the Higher Category is Category:Locator maps of cities in the United States NOT Maryland (or any other State) county locator maps, or Category:Locator maps of counties in the United States That's what I meant, then as you say, put them all in one place. I will go back and corrrect my mistake WayneRay 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Perhaps we're talking about different things here? I am NOT talking about city locator maps, just county ones? As far as I can see, "County locator maps of Missouri" are categorised in "Maps of Missouri" and "Locator maps of counties of the United States by state", which I think is correct?

I have finished with the Maps of Missouri, the only improvement is perhaps that all the "maps of counties" could be caught under one category, so you end up with 4 links there, and then a couple of images. Have a look and see what you think. Deadstar (msg) 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Have asked the commons delinker to change over the category on the extra County locator maps of Maryland so you don't have to go in - it'll be fixed in a second :) Deadstar (msg) 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...And here I was thinking you were in Alabama :P. In Ireland myself - leaving now again for the day. Talk to you later. Deadstar (msg) 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I finished Kansas & Oregon. It seems to me that it might be helpful to have the "Maps of counties of ..." category after all. It already existed for Kansas, I just filled it up. Didn't create one for Oregon, kinda leaving that up to the next person looking at it... (BTW I have no pattern in doing these, I just randomly pick a state when I feel like it :)) Deadstar (msg) 11:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd categories

Hi, thanks for your edits to maps I made, but I must confess I do not understand the category changes you made to Image:Alabama Locator Map.PNG and Image:Maine Locator Map.PNG. These are maps which show the whole state, do not highlight any county, and do not show any cities. That is why I originally put them in the categories Category:Maps of Alabama and Category:Maps of Maine, as they can be used for a locator dot to show any feature in the state. You took them out of these categories and put them into two two different categories: Category:Locator maps of cities in Alabama Template and Category:Maine county locator maps. Can you please explain your changes? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 05:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow in replying, I usually work on Wikipedia and just checked my account here. Let me think about a category name - whatever it is, it should be consistent across US States (there are maps in the same style for all 50 states). How about "Category:X locator maps" or "Category:X general locator maps" (where X is the state name)? I would be glad to hear any suggestions you have, Ruhrfisch 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

image:SchlumbergeraGaertneriWPC.jpg

This image has a bad name. The cacti in the image is Schlumbergera ×buckleyi. The name Schlumbergera gaertneri is an old name for Hatiora gaertneri, a cactus with symmestric flowers and lack of floral tube. Please correct the file name.

Deletion request for Image:Kalanchoe sp.jpg

Hi there, I noticed you initiated a deletion request for Image:Kalanchoe sp.jpg. However, you did not complete the request; consequently the discussion is not yet valid. Please complete the steps given in the {{Delete}} template on the image description page. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason was on there and I placed it also in the Talk page of the deletion request WayneRay 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Sonchus oleraceus

Was this edit[2] because of a positive identification, or just based on my description with 'Sonchus oleraceus?' ? I query this because 'Sonchus oleraceus' has been described as having hairless stems, but see the stem bottom left here. --Tony Wills 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been back to look for more positive id features, and will work out where it should go :-) --Tony Wills 19:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted category removal

Thank you.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

again!?

Hi WayneRay. Per our discussion here, please don't do this [4]. You have said that you taken one side of a supposed controversy (I am with the other group that the gallery is is more important, linked to the Category.), your edits and deletions may be seen as partisan. I'm not interested in some debate elsewhere, I want my images accessible in many ways - it does no harm. I have given time and thought to the categorisation of my uploads, and will again, please don't delete them. Thanks Cygnis insignis 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coffee.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Coffee.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

-Nard 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Upapa epops

Image deletion warning

Category:Upapa epops has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Frédéric 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalism

It is completely unacceptable to remove categories from uploads, it is vandalism. Your opinion that galleries replace categories is not a reason to remove them from images, it is tantamount to edit warring. Please revert your extensive and unjustified removals of categories. Cygnis insignis 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all It is not vandalism and Secondly some of the categories were totally way out of place and innapropriate like the British sports photos of girls in bikinis playing soccer, some of the categories were things like the Sun, and Sand and England? If someone is looking for photos of the Sun who the hell wants to see a bikini shot????? Or some of the others had up to 10 categories and half were really unrelated, really. It is you that should take a good look at over categorization. It is not vandalism, it's common sense, Take a relax pill and oh, I set up the Botanical illustrations category form about 6 to the present under a 100 new ones. and I will eventually put all the photos in galleries or categories approprite to the main category and your and others duplicate photos will be removed and put in the appropriate place WayneRay 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

You know I am talking about taxonomy, verifiable and accepted botanical taxonomy. The first part of your answer is irrelevant, I'm not sure what you are indicating in the second part. You are either misguided, or doing this unknowingly, but I must inform you that it is vandalism. Why did you remove the category here - let me rephrase that - what policy or guideline do you claim to be using when you degraded these images? Your edit comment removed higher order category, placed in more appropriate category/gallery is not what you are doing. You are systematically removing categories and replacing them with galleries. And by the way, what was the point of this edit to the page User:Cygnis insignis? Cygnis insignis 07:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I didn't know what area you were talking about and i looked at the Herbarium speciman and I don't see that there was a category, already. I think I just put the photos in the image gallery for herbarium material, and November 1st I really don't recall what I did with your image gallery at the time, maybe it was a link or something misspelled I really don't recall. WayneRay 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

There was a category, you must have known it existed when you removed in your run: [5]; [6]; [7]; [8], with the edit comment: removed higher order category, placed in more appropriate category/gallery. I will ask again, please revert your extensive and unjustified removals of categories. Cygnis insignis 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But they are in categories, Helloborus_foetidus is in Category Helloborus,Nepenthes_mirabilis et al are all in Category Nepenthes, there is absolutely no need for a category with the same name as the article with exactly the same photos in both, that is an utter waste of space and search time for people looking for the species, they will just be seeing double. You create a duplicate category if you like. Je refuse WayneRay 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

copy of clarification

Please assume good faith. Also, be kind enough to review the guidance of COM:TOL#Images, Images that are known with certainty to represent a particular species should appear in the species article, and not be categorized in any of the taxa categories. Images not so well-identified should be put directly in the most precise category to which they can be reliably assigned. Not everyone agrees with that guidance, but most people who are active in identifying and classifying biota concur with it. WayneRay's edits appear to be consistent with that guidance. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of category from "Image:Endive-JohnParkinson-ParadisiinSole-1656.jpg"

Hi, Wayne, you recently edited "Image:Endive-JohnParkinson-ParadisiinSole-1656.jpg" to remove the category "Category:Botanical illustrations" from the image, having placed the image in the gallery "Endive". However, the image is certainly of a botanical illustration – shouldn't the image remain in that category? Let's discuss the matter on the image's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question of a great many other images. Let's discuss it here please, since it related to more than one image. Hesperian 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

John Parkinson

HI this Gallery page contains all the images by the illustrator. This page is linked to Category:Botanical illustrations so in the higher order of things, this is where the image should go. All the Galleries and Categories are the same. If they were all duplicated then we would have 2000 or more images at the bottom to take up space. The ones that are there now are one's I haven't found a home category or gallery for. Thanks WayneRay 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

I see. Didn't realize the article "John Parkinson" was linked to "Category:Botanical illustrations". I think there needs to be a usage note at the top of "Botanical illustrations" to advise editors where to place images. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, many Categories should be article galleries but it is so much easier to place things in Cat's than it is to take the time to create a gallery article. see the note copy of clarification, two notes above on putting images in galleries instead of categories WayneRay 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

And this one? Hesperian 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On this one you might want to put the Category with Botanical illustrations instead of the Gallery article as it is linked to the Category. Or as it probably should be done, remove the images from the category as the article gallery already exists and we have duplicate images. WayneRay 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Newspaper clippings

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Newspaper clippings. Lupo 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not add licenses to untagged images

Please do not add licenses to untagged images, such as you did http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Hiszpa%C5%84ski_osio%C5%82.PNG&diff=8238940&oldid=8238873 here without explanation. You cannot legally add information for another user's upload without solid evidence (which should be noted in the edit summary). -Nard 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)