User talk:Famartin/Archive 4

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

Road signs in Virginia by location

None of the Interstate 81 signs I recategorized were actually on I-81 itself. Why did you revert my categorization. --DanTD (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You're not following the pattern I initiated elsewhere. And those need to be in the sub-cats I created, or sub-cats of those sub-cats. See my work elsewhere, and recently on I-81. Famartin (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Auto train signs

What possible benefit is it for users to have these duplicate categories? It just makes users have to click through more pages to find what they're looking for. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, its FOR ease of use while also keeping true to the purpose of categorization. Someone looking for images of Lorton station is probably not likely to be looking for an image of a sign for it, but they are definitely still related, so this keeps that category free of sign images which are related to, but not OF, Lorton Station. Likewise for the AutoTrain... someone looking for images of AutoTrain probably isn't looking for images of a sign, but they are still related, so it keeps the sign separate, but still clearly identified in a sub category, for those few who may be looking for it, while keeping relevant images close together. Famartin (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
That might make sense if there were dozens or hundreds of images in the category, or multiple sign images. But Category:Lorton station has 12 files and Category:Auto Train has 14. There's simply not a need to create multiple subcategories just to separate a single file from a small category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, I also have a category for signs in Virginia by destination. Can't very well fit that in there otherwise. Out of curiosity, what even got you to notice those categories? You'd never edited that image before, so that's not it. You'd never edited AutoTrain before. I never even pinged Lorton Station originally, so that can't be it. Famartin (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Category:Road signs along Interstate 95 in Fairfax County, Virginia hardly seems insufficient for that purpose.
I have a very large watchlist, which includes some categories that I've never edited: categories for pages I've edited on enwiki, categories that I've added to/organized but not edited, and categories that I patrol for spam and miscategorized uploads. In this case, it was your creation of the duplicate Category:Amtrak Auto Train in Category:Amtrak (which I have watchlisted) that alerted me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Reply to comment one - that's not how the categorization scheme works. Reply to comment two - I'll again point out that your response seemed highly out of proportion. It has seemed to me that any category for which there is uncertainty (like calling it Amtrak Auto Train vs Auto Train) should have a redirect. That's a pretty easy thing to create and avoids the duplication you mention by automatically forcing everything to where it needs to go. Famartin (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

picture question

Hello, I found that you uploaded this picture (2008-07-09 Ely Airport ASOS OID.jpg). I would like to ask you if you know when the computer in the picture was produced. 2401:E180:8853:7F77:7A18:380C:F648:22DF 15:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a good idea, but certainly before 2000. Famartin (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I am an editor of the Chinese Wiki. The Chinese Wiki uses the pictures you took, but he didn't say when the computer was built, so I want to ask you whether this computer is a computer from the 1980s or 1990s. 2401:E180:8853:7F77:7A18:380C:F648:22DF 16:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I suspect early 90s, but I'm afraid that's the best I can do. I just took the photo, I didn't look closely at the computer for those details, and that was 15 years ago. Famartin (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for answering my question. I can only speculate from the photos that it may be a computer produced by WYSE. 2401:E180:8853:7F77:7A18:380C:F648:22DF 16:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thx 2401:E180:8853:7F77:7A18:380C:F648:22DF 16:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

State Line Lookout Road and Abandoned US 9W

The photo that I added the Disused roads category to includes the abandoned segment of US 9W along with State Line Lookout Road. That's why I added that category to your photo. I wasn't suggesting State Line Lookout Road itself was the abandoned highway. --DanTD (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That said, the other two photos I just added to that category are much more deserving, so maybe just leave things be. But, thanks for noticing that some content I have added should be placed in that category. Famartin (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pilot Peak

You removed Category:Geography of Elko County, Nevada from Category:Pilot Peak saying it was an overcat because Pilot Peak is in Category:Pilot Range, which is a subcat of . However, I did in fact check cats before adding that, which is how I saw that Pilot Range is also a subcat of Category:Landforms of Box Elder County, Utah. It is accurate that the range is located in both counties; however, Pilot Peak itself is located solely within Elko County, which is relevant information and why I added that category. Since you did not find that categorization acceptable, what do you propose is the best way to show that Pilot Peak is located in Elko County? -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Solely is debateable. The peak proper is, yes, technically just inside the Elko County line, but the mountain is certainly shared by the two states. If you wanted to create a category "Mountains in Elko County, Nevada", and place it there, then I guess that's alright. Famartin (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

File:2019-10-10 22 12 08 A packet of Jell-O strawberry gelatin snacks in the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Fairfax County, Virginia.jpg

File:2019-10-10 22 12 08 A packet of Jell-O strawberry gelatin snacks in the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Fairfax County, Virginia.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct credit line for using one of your images in wikimedia commons

Hello I came across this image Canadian_wildfire_smoke_obscuring_the_view_southeast_down_the_Delaware_River_from_Interstate_295_(Scudder_Falls_Bridge)_along_the_border_of_Ewing_Township,_New_Jersey_and_Lower_Make and would like to use it as a three second still in a short experimental/non-commercial video. Would this be possible, and if so, can you please let me know the correct credit line, and whether an end credit is sufficient? Thank you for your time. Mandy mandylwilliams@yahoo.co.uk 86.144.123.137 15:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-07-07 17 01 18 Mammatus clouds with cumulus underneath viewed from Burlington County Route 630 (Woodlane Road) in Westampton Township, Burlington County, New Jersey.jpg

Why do you insist to put Category:Cumulus clouds to this file and File:2023-07-07 17 01 18 Mammatus clouds with cumulus underneath viewed from Burlington County Route 630 (Woodlane Road) in Westampton Township, Burlington County, New Jersey.jpg. All files in this category must be distributed to its subcategories as it is a mother category of all cumulus (humilis, mediocris, cumulonimbus, etc...) I had found a subcategory applicable and you reversed it???????

Pierre cb (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not applicable. Do you not see the cumulus developing beneath the mammatus? Famartin (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not blind, you should put an annotation on the images in order to attract the attention to that minor detail. You have to put the sub category type of those cumulus (humilis, mediocris or congestus) you refer to instead of let them in the mother category. Pierre cb (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Uh, the file litterally says "Mammatus clouds with cumulus underneath". What more do you want? As far as type, those are YOUR rules, which is fine, but don't expect EVERYONE to follow them. If you want to keep the category in your preferred file separation, then its up to you. Famartin (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
You are missing the point, it is marked at the top {{Categorize}} because cumulus is just a general type of cloud. Pierre cb (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
You are missing the point, too. You have been working to categorize all the different subtypes of cumulus, which is great, fine, wonderful job. But don't expect others to be that specific. If you want to maintain the category nice and pretty, then that's up to you. I make lots of different sign categories, but I don't expect others to just plop everything in the right spot. I'll put things there myself. I'm not fighting you on sub-categorizing - you've done this with a lot of my photos and I don't do anything. In THIS instance, however, you kept putting it in the incorrect place, so yeah, I reverted you. Can you just suck it up, admit you put it in the wrong place, put them in a proper cumulus sub-cat, and let it go already? Famartin (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I did not as cumulus is not a proper qualifier to name clouds, it is a general term that goes from humilis to cumulonimbus. If you want to let it not specific, put them in Category:Cumulus clouds to be classified Pierre cb (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Cultivars and flowers

Hi Famartin - in case it's escaped your notice, all but 2 (Moonlight 0zz.jpg and Moonlight 1zz.jpg) of the 32 files in Category:Cytisus scoparius (cultivars) are in flower; it's the only effective way they can be identified as cultivars. If you want them all in Category:Cytisus scoparius (flowers), then make Category:Cytisus scoparius (cultivars) a subcat of Category:Cytisus scoparius (flowers). Or if you want to be really, really pedantic, leave those 2 'Moonlight' as the sole occupants of (cultivars), with all the rest (including yours) in a new subcategory (cultivars in flower). Having your two as the only ones in both (cultivars) and (flowers) is out of line with the entire rest of the set, for both subcategories. Remember also (flowers) is currently overloaded (>200 files). - MPF (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and also worth adding that most, if not all, of these cultivars are actually of hybrid origin (with Cytisus purpureus), so technically, they are not C. scoparius at all, though few textbooks make this distinction - MPF (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
MPF - you're the one who decided to remove a bunch of pictures of flowers from the flowers category, so its really on YOU to make the proper sub cats. Don't be lazy. Do proper categorization, or don't do it at all. You seem to love doing categories such as "Pinus strobus (cultivated, bark)" so just do one for "Category:Cytisus scoparius (cultivars, flowers)" as a subcat of (cultivars) and (flowers). Since you seem to be the one who has an issue with this, you should be the one who does it, but til you do, I'm keeping mine where they legally belong. Famartin (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Useless request

Any request of you is absolutely pointless since you refused to even follow "your" own rules that you are emphatic about imposing on other editors. Recently multiple instances of your deleting categories that FULLY comply with "your" rules have been discovered, which clearly demonstrates that you are far more interested in controlling other editors work, than you are about improving the content of WkikiMedida. Examples would be provided, but you have clearly demonstrated that you will ignore actual evidence. Since you refuse to acknowledge your behavior, this editor will continue to leave it to others to get you shut down again. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Your unidentified pines

Hi Famartin - I've been looking at some of these again, thought I'd run them past you before changing the categories. These are all Pinus taeda on cone and foliage structure; they appear to be forestry plantations (i.e., cultivated) rather than natural forests:

This is most likely also Pinus taeda, but not 100% definite:

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

They all make sense given the setting, so have at-it. Famartin (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Done - MPF (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

File:2020-09-28 14 51 10 A bag of Hostess Strawberry Cheesecake Mini Donuts in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia.jpg

File:2020-09-28 14 51 10 A bag of Hostess Strawberry Cheesecake Mini Donuts in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

DanielPenfield (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Privet pics

Hi again - your two pics File:2023-05-29 17 31 49 Privet blooming along the edge of the forest within Ann M. Banchoff Park in the Mountainview section of Ewing Township, Mercer County, New Jersey.jpg and File:2023-05-29 17 32 17 Privet flowers along the edge of the forest within Ann M. Banchoff Park in the Mountainview section of Ewing Township, Mercer County, New Jersey.jpg are not Ligustrum vulgare, the flowers in drooping clusters are wrong for that (erect, or at least stiffly horizontal), as are the long corolla tube and long-acuminate corolla lobes (short, and with bluntly pointed lobe apices in L. vulgare). I'm not sure what they are; at first I thought an Osmanthus, but the best fit (O. × burkwoodii) still doesn't seem quite right. I'll move them to Category:Unidentified Oleaceae for now, and carry on looking for any better match, unless you can suggest anything else? - MPF (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Addenum: I've found a good match in Ligustrum obtusifolium, compare here: File:Ligustrum obtusifolium1.jpg - MPF (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
OK sounds good. Famartin (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Views from automobiles in Delaware

How are those two images where I added the category Category:Views from automobiles in Delaware not views from automobiles in Delaware? --DanTD (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Because I was not in an automobile when I took them. It is extremely rare these days for me to take pictures from within an automobile. Famartin (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
So what did you do? Just dart out in the middle of traffic? ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Only if you count "standing in shoulders" or "sitting on construction barriers" as "darting out in the middle of traffic". Famartin (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

File:2020-06-21 23 54 55 Cup Noodles Beef flavor packaging in the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Fairfax County, Virginia.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:2020-06-21 23 54 55 Cup Noodles Beef flavor packaging in the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Fairfax County, Virginia.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : None.

And also:

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Komarof (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File:2019-01-28 19 55 14 A Snickers bar with the wrapper still intact in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia.jpg

File:2019-01-28 19 55 14 A Snickers bar with the wrapper still intact in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

DanielPenfield (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

'Larch' pics

Hi Famartin - your set of 5 photos including File:2023-11-03 10 33 31 A Larch tree changing color in autumn along New Jersey State Route 29 (River Road) in the Mountainview section of Ewing Township, Mercer County, New Jersey.jpg are actually a Golden-larch (Pseudolarix amabilis) - nice find, quite a rare tree! I'll recategorise them now - MPF (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

File:2021-09-04 23 15 24 A bag of Peanut Butter M&M's in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia.jpg

File:2021-09-04 23 15 24 A bag of Peanut Butter M&M's in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for all the beautiful fall foliage images you uploaded recently. I really enjoyed looking at your photos today! All the best from Chico, CA --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) P.S. If you're interested in a photographers' community on Commons, please sign up here…

Capital Health

Hi Famatin! Mike at iHeartRadio here - we used your photo of Capital Health Regional Medical Center on an article we wrote this morning under the Creative Commons license.

https://wsus1023.iheart.com/content/2023-11-29-second-new-jersey-health-network-targeted-by-ransomware-attack/

Please let me know if you have any concerns on the usage. Thanks for the great photography! Ihateaubergine (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Picture Opportunity - Incorrect Signage

Hello! I noticed an error in county-route signage that you might find interesting.

Here's the intersection in question: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0384933,-74.1079834,3a,75y,305.86h,88.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0MzZB2B51KJ5SN3PHJ-vRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

If you dance around in street view, you'll see the overhead signs near the traffic lights incorrectly label both Drum Point Rd and Adamston Rd as County Route 524 instead of 624. As of today (23-12-21), a few are still there.

It doesn't look like you "collect" errors like this (at least publicly), but you were the only person I could think of who might be equally as excited about noticing it. I'd be interested to hear of any other hiccups you've noticed along the way.

Thanks again for the inspiring work!

--Looseleafbrief (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't get to travel much beyond Mercer and Burlington counties these days, but if I'm out there I'll try to remember to check it out. Famartin (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ash wood

I see you reverted my edit. I suppose "ash wood" can be defined variously, but by most definitions this image tells nothing about ash wood. It is a stump of an ash tree, as is already recognized by several other categories. It could be said to show something about felling a tree, as there are traces of sawing. It can also be said to show broken bits of decaying branches, and a bit of ground. None of this is informative, or worth mentioning.

Anybody looking for any kind of visual information on ash wood will be very hard put to find anything of the sort in this picture. This is very close to dedicating a picture of a street five minutes after a famous person walked through (maybe) to that person. - Brya (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I completely don't understand you here. A tree is made of wood. A stump is freshly cut wood, last I checked. It clearly shows wood. Famartin (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
For example, how is my photo any different from these: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fraxinus_excelsior_crosssection.jpg , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fraxinus_excelsior1_cross_beentree.JPG , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tronco_freixo.jpg , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schotten_Betzenrod_Logging_Fraxinus_excelsior_DSHWood.png ??? Famartin (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
To put it bluntly: "a tree stump is that part of the trunk that is not converted to wood but is left to rot in the ground". That is, when wood is regarded as a material, something that people make things out of. And there are two basic arguments to regard wood as being a material. Firstly this is how a very large group of people views it, because they do use it that way (for example "this chair is made of wood"). Secondly, Commons needs categories for pictures of material, otherwise a very great deal of the real world could not find these pictures. To the world at large, the fact that "ash wood" is derived from trees of Fraxinus is close to immaterial. Of course this is more clear with imported woods: if a wood is imported from Africa (say 'sapeli'), practically nobody in the US will have much of an idea what the tree that yielded it looked like.
        The point of view that "A tree is made of wood" can be adopted by somebody examining the internal mechanics, or hydraulics of a tree. But outside such narrow perspectives, this is not a particularly useful point of view. Anyway, such perspectives belong almost exclusively to the tree as a whole. Once the tree has been cut the internal mechanics, or hydraulics of a tree have been destroyed, so this point of view becomes a lot less useful.
        But you are certainly right that the examples you mention are very dubious inclusions in this category. They only fit in the category on an intermediary basis. Especially https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schotten_Betzenrod_Logging_Fraxinus_excelsior_DSHWood.png only belongs there as illustrating an aspect of logging Fraxinus-trees. And logging is an essential step preceding conversion to saleable wood. Without logging there would be no (tradeable) ash (wood). But for most purposes it would be inadequate to say these logs are ash (wood): they are (or can be) on the way to becoming that, and only vaguely belong there (or somewhere in there). But certainly, this placement is less than ideal. - Brya (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You seem to be making a distinction between biological wood and lumber wood. I’d suggest you make more specific categories if you prefer only lumber wood to be in such categories. Famartin (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
That is an odd bit of semantics (see here, for example). Your "biological wood" is mostly a theoretical construct. In practice all dealings people have with wood occur only after it has been cut and processed: "ash wood" in practice is unambiguous (in Wikidata the item "ash wood" has some hundred incoming links from items of pieces of furniture or sculpture). The common way to refer to the "biological wood" of Fraxinus is "ash tree". What happens inside an ash tree is beyond the unaided perceptions of any human. Only if somebody brings a piece of equipment is it possible to bridge this gap. - Brya (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
You're looking at it from a wood-cutter's perspective. Think of it from the average random person. Wood is wood. If you want to specify a category for Ash wood (lumber), then by all means. Famartin (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
No, I am taking into account the various several perspectives of all kinds of 'average persons', including those who use furniture, who use stairs, who use gardening tools, who walk on floors, who view sculptures, etc. If you feel that those with x-ray vision are in need of a category "Ash wood (biological wood)" then go ahead and create that category, although I am not clear on what files you could include in such a category. - Brya (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
You're thinking is flawed. Aside from you still thinking general people don't include a tree as being wood, if you go to the top-level category https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wood, there's all sorts of categories related to general wood, not this specific "Ash wood lumber" that you think should only be included in "Ash wood". If you have a problem with what's included in that category, go argue with someone else. Famartin (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
My position is that people think of wood as being material, and of trees as being trees. This top-level category Wood has 55 categories, and I cannot spot any category among these that does not treat wood as being material, perfectly in line with ash wood being a material. There, "wood" is even summarized as "fibrous material from trees or other plants". - Brya (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I grow tired of this ridiculous debate, so I've taken care of it. Famartin (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Famartin/Archive_4&oldid=857440645"