User talk:MPF/archive15

Jeffrey Pine cones overcat?

Hello, MPF. I’m not sure why you keep adding Category:Pinus jeffreyi to images in Category:Pinus jeffreyi cones? That appears to be COM:OVERCAT. — hike395 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395: It is; best to delete the cones subcategory (I'd planned to do so in a day or two) as it is a bad mix-up of natural and cultivated material mixed without distinction, and also excessive subdivision of a small parent category. The cones from cultivated trees should be put in Cat:Pinus jeffreyi (cultivated), and the wild ones in the main species category. That way the {Geogroup} mapping maps all the wild specimens, without contamination from the cultivated stuff (often of dubious identification). - MPF (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the cones highlighted, somehow, perhaps in a category. We have 27 images of the quite distinctive cones: I think having a separate category could be helpful to our readers. Admittedly, there were only 20 visits to that category for all of last year vs. 139 for the species category and 392 for the species gallery. I could possibly expand the cones section of the gallery. — hike395 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395: But it defeats the value of the {Geogroup} mapping facility. And it is important to keep natural and cultivated separate (just as a botanical institution herbarium would). While there's still well below 200 photos of Pinus jeffreyi in its native environment, I don't see any value in splitting it up into multiple subcategories; it just makes images harder to find, as you need to look through numerous subcategories instead of just one - MPF (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should use {{Geogroup}} to strongly influence our categorization decisions. Of the three alternatives, the Bing maps don't seem to work at all, and the KML export barely works when loaded into Google Earth (the Linux web version, at least). The OpenStreetMap version works very nicely (see, e.g., the OSM GeoGroup for the Pinus jeffreyi category). The OSM version only shows images at the top layer of the category by default, so subcategories images are excluded. Therefore, any subcategory image will be excluded.

I think the cones would be a legitimate subcategory, and are distinct from what people expect from images in the main category. Of the 27 images currently in the cone category, 17 don't actually show the habitus or foilage of the pine tree. Simply lumping those 17 images into the main category to make {{Geogroup}} work differently does not seem like a good tradeoff to me. — hike395 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395: that the bing and kml don't work is irrelevant; the open one does (and is what I use), and is useful. Yes, subcategory images are excluded; that is exactly why I think the cones should not be moved out to a subcategory, as they are thereby excluded from the map (unless you tick the Subcategories box - but then that also adds in the cultivated junk, which one doesn't want). Of "the cones would be a legitimate subcategory": that would be a reasonable point if there were over 200 photos of the species in the wild. But there aren't; there's well under 100. So it makes far better sense to keep them all together for easy searching. It also doesn't answer the problem that your Category:Pinus jeffreyi cones doesn't discriminate between real cones and cultivated crap (or even illustrations of cones), they are all mixed together indiscriminately, which is very poor for image sorting and selecting. - MPF (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Betula pendula error

Betula pendula - thanks for reporting the error. RSLlGriffith (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Garryaceae

Hi! In template Taxonavigation Category:Garryaceae (and subcategories) is in Boraginales instead of Garryales. Do you know how to change it? Regards, Salicyna (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Salicyna: - thanks! I'll take a look in a mo - MPF (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Salicyna: - done! Thanks for spotting the error :-) MPF (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Salicyna (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is on!

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you!

hello MPF,

I would like to offer MANY SINCERE THANKS for your efforts. You have recategorized many of my botanical photographs, which has made me VERY HAPPY. I know very little about botany (I just take photos) but understand that many things are in flux right now; and I am so glad that you are working hard to keep botany up to date.

with all best wishes for 2022, Daderot (talk)

@Daderot: thanks, glad to help! :-) MPF (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Tree against sky.jpg

File:Tree against sky.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!

Paul Harrison (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Belfast penguin

Long overdue on my part. This is the holoyype of the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri (added wth some other details to the page description' Thankyou for the reminder Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Notafly: - excellent, thanks! Makes it a really important specimen! I'll check the categories now - MPF (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Filename move request

Dear MPF,

may I ask for your suppport? I loaded up a new file with a mistake in its name: File:Kiva (ancient building for community council meetings) Cliff Palace , Mesa Verde, Coloradoat Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde, Colorado.jpg (Datei). The name is supposed to end behind the first "Colorado". Would you please change the name adaequatly? I got the idea to ask you as I learned you are able to change file names some time ago (file.Common gull..). I want to add the file to the challenge "parliaments". Best regards and thank you. Hartmut SchmidtFoeniz (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Foeniz: - done; I also improved the grammar slightly, so it is now: File:Kiva (ancient building for community council meetings) at Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde, Colorado.jpg :-) MPF (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear MPF, this really is high speed friendliness. Thank you very much!

Best regards Foeniz (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MPF. You have new messages at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#Update request. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stang^★ 16:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of categories

Why you have deleted some categories that I created about protected natural areas of Macedonia. I created and precisely reorganized them for an upcoming photo contest and you just showed up to make obstacles. Undelete them! Dandarmkd (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dandarmkd: they were empty (and had been for some time), which is a valid reason for deletion. Many were also badly titled (not using the scientific name) and categorised (placed in a genus category, not the relevant species or species by country category). In general, it also isn't a good idea to have separate categories for individual trees, unless the tree concerned is of exceptional significance. Better to put them all into one category, e.g. Category:Platanus orientalis in Macedonia, rather than multiple categories of one tree each like [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Kruševo Republic Square], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Voska], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Retirement Association building], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Red Cross building], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Košišta], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Gorna Vlaška Maala] [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Church of the Theotokos Peribleptos], etc. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: On many points you are wrong and you are just nitpicking. Firstly, ofcourse they were empty, it was a preparation for the upcoming photo contest Wiki Loves Earth that will be held the entire May. The categories need to exist when the contest is occurring. It had to be ready. If they were badly titled you could have rename/move them, but you chose the easiest option - deletion (bravo!). Also naming them after the genus is not that big of a deal, neither that they had an English name instead of a scientific one. There will be many images of the individual trees, so it is better to have their own categories (like I did when creating them). Every individual protected natural area had its own category, but now you messed it up.Dandarmkd (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dandarmkd: - I've restored abut half of them so far, and will do the rest soon when I have time (probably tomorrow). I've renamed a couple and recategorised where needed. Apologies for misunderstanding their future use! - MPF (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: Thank you for understanding. Please let me know which ones are renamed. Have a good day!Dandarmkd (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dandarmkd: - thanks! All restored now, sorry it took longer than expected (other things intervened!). I've made some educated guesswork as to the species involved (Platanus orientalis for the planes, Cupressus sempervirens for the cypresses), which will need to be checked when the photos related to these categories get uploaded. For renamed categories, I've moved Category:Jegunovce aspen to Category:Populus tremula in Jegunovce, North Macedonia (other categories with named trees would benefit from similar moves, once their species identities are confirmed); and also (special case) Category:Morodvis plane trees to Category:Nature in Morodvis (in this case, the category already contained some photos, which did not show plane trees other than just one photo, where the tree was not the main subject of the photo). Any more queries, let me know - MPF (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

File tagging File:European Robin silhouette.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:European Robin silhouette.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:European Robin silhouette.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

shizhao (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shizhao: - agree, delete (not sure why I bothered to add the brightened version!). Lifted from instagram, no valid license - MPF (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Viola × wittrockiana or Viola tricolor?

I noticed you changed the names and descriptions of three pictures I uploaded years ago from Viola tricolor to Viola × wittrockiana:

File:Viola × wittrockiana, Schenley Park, 2015-10-01, 01.jpg

File:Viola × wittrockiana, Schenley Park, 2015-10-01, 02.jpg

File:Viola × wittrockiana, Schenley Park, 2015-10-01, 03.jpg

I was wondering how you identified the plants as Viola × wittrockiana rather than Viola tricolor. Though the flowers look big in the pictures, they were not much bigger than a common blue violet; I was using a camera that focuses down to less than half an inch. I found them in an overgrown meadow. It’s possible you were mistaken—but I always assume it’s more likely that I was mistaken, and if you can tell me what to look for to distinguish the hybrid from the species, I’ll have learned something valuable.

Thanks for the work you’ve been doing here.

Cbaile19 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cbaile19: - I was mainly going on the intensity of the red tones in the purple of the top petals, and the extent and intensity of yellow in the bottom petal; this combination is not normal in wild V. tricolor, and suggests a past history of cultivation (inevitable too, given the location far outside the species' native range!) and hybridisation. For more natural colours, see e.g. File:Viola tricolor whole.jpg. They could perhaps be placed equally well in Category:Viola tricolor (cultivars) though; with extensive breeding for ornamental plants, the border between this and Category:Viola × wittrockiana is pretty undefinable. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This note is longer than I want it to be, and if you don’t bother reading it I won’t blame you at all.

The intensity of the red tones might be partly a photographic artifact. My ancient Konica-Minolta camera was known for a slightly orangish cast in its pictures. No digital camera renders colors perfectly, and reviewers noted that particular quirk in that model. I got it used for 99¢, and it’s been worth every penny.

I agree that the plant has to have some cultivated ancestry, since Viola tricolor came here as a garden plant. I wouldn’t really call it a cultivar any more than I’d call the other European weeds that have escaped and made themselves at home “cultivars.” But I agree that it’s not easy to sort out what one of these Violas is; Britton & Brown describe V. tricolor as “Usually more or less impure, the garden pansy being the product of frequent crosses of V. tricolor with allied species of the Old World.” Nevertheless, Britton & Brown and (to be more up to date) the Flora of North America and the USDA PLANTS database all list V. tricolor (and not V. x wittrockiana) in the wild here, the PLANTS database with an image credited to “William S. Justice, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Botany” that shows flowers very similar in color pattern to the ones I photographed.

My opinion isn’t worth much, but you can have it anyway. Changing a file name is sometimes necessary, but it causes a cascade of problems. It breaks any links in Web sites that use the file—this is a weakness of the Internet, not just Commons. Changing the name can also cause the original uploader to lose the file completely. If I hadn’t named the files by the date of the photograph, I would have had a hard time finding them in eight years’ worth of upload log. (There’s probably a good way to search the log, but it wasn’t obvious to me, and therefore isn’t obvious to an average user who’s been around for eight years.) Changing the caption, description, and category cause none of those problems.

So I have two suggestions. First, I think we should be very conservative about changing file names unless they’re obviously misleading. Second, assuming the name is misleading, it might be good to leave a quick note on the original uploader’s talk page. That doesn’t solve the problem of broken Web pages, but it does at least let one interested party know where the file went.

I’ve taken too much of your time already (and way too much of mine, but I get easily distracted). If my observations were useful to you, I’m happy; if not, ignore them, and thanks for your work in trying to manage the chaos here. Cbaile19 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cbaile19: - interesting comments, thanks! Of the colour balance, I played around with one of the pics in gimp, and if I pushed the flower to the 'right' colour for natural V. tricolor, the leaves turned out an impossible colour. So I reckon the flower is genuinely different in colour, not just a photo artefact. Filename changes aren't that bad, as the redirect remains to take you to the new name, so I don't think that's a significant problem (if it was, the rules governing name changes would be considerably tighter than they are). Asking original uploaders before making a filename change might be a good idea in principle, but it just isn't workable: a substantial proportion of files are posted by users who are no longer active on Commons and wouldn't reply at all, while for many more, waiting for a response so holds up an editor's progress that it stifles any work too much. In my experience, only a tiny minority of users comment about filename changes to their uploads (and usually positively, rather than negatively). Of Britton & Brown, and USDA, I don't think they're right to maintain the species for naturalised garden hybrids; if a hybrid name is available, it should be used for 'impure' populations with an ancestry of hybridisation. Neither of the two photos at the USDA page fit with what I'd call V. tricolor - MPF (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Belated thanks

File:Pinus ponderosa 4755.JPG	Award for range map exactitude
	A belated thanks for fixing the minor error in the Ponderosa pine range map back in 2014. A lot of Commons maps have errors, and I appreciate it when people find them and fix them. — hike395 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! MPF (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Tbilisi campaign poster, 2008.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Tbilisi campaign poster, 2008.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

--EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Aythyinae

I note that you deleted Category:Aythyinae in 2009 and again in 2019, and Aythyinae in 2019.

While the taxonomic taxon may indeed we ill-defined, and the category arguably of doubtful value, I think a gallery may indeed be useful, to point to the related categories and to show examples of genera that belong to the subfamily according to different definitions. The related Wikidata entry has Wikipedia articles in loads of languages, and we might want to help Wikipedias to find media to illustrate those articles.

Could the deleted gallery be used for this purpose? If it wasn't good, could it perhaps be edited to be more useful?

I don't see any link to a discussion on Categories for discussion or a deletion request. I think a discussion is warranted if the entities aren't to be restored.

–LPfi (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @LPfi: the problem is, (a) Aythyini and the other Anatidae tribes as traditionally circumscribed (e.g. Johnsgard 1978, Livesey 1986), are not all monophyletic, and (b) IOC (the avian taxonomy we follow on Commons) and the other major avain authorities do not use any ranks between family and genus. Circumsriptions of tribes used in various research papers vary between the different individual studies. So finding out what would be included in each tribe is a bit of a lottery, as well as contrary to our policy of following IOC. Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can do, is to follow IOC in not including tribal subdivisions in Anatidae or other bird families. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. I understand that the taxonomic categories should follow a scheme, and excluding a category like this then follows. That's one thing. But deleting galleries is a different thing. The gallery can be categorised in Anatinae or Anatidae (whatever comprises everything in Aythyinae), and all the issues can be explained on the category page (or a page where they are explained can be linked). For somebody reading one of the numerous Wikipedia articles on this taxon or on its vernacular equivalents, it helps to have a page on Commons, from where to navigate to the canonical categories. –LPfi (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Leeds City Museum taxidermied Red Kite

Please note that the actual name of this specimen is The Leeds Red Kite. A number of the other taxidermied specimens there are named in this way. The reason is that it differentiates specimens which are inherited from different museums. This is a traditional way to name specimens which the public audience is fond of, in the UK. The Leeds Tiger is the most important named specimen in the museum. Parents have been taking their children to see it for generations. The Armley Hippo is another name well-known to Leeds children and their schools, who come to the museum to study it - that name is used in local newspaper articles. So please think twice before renaming UK specimens which have already been named in this way. The categories are there to help readers find what they are looking for. They will now have difficulty in finding the Leeds Red Kite. Red kites are important here, because they used to be extinct in this area, but have now been reintroduced to the area, and the local people are very proud of them. Children study them in schools. Storye book (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Storye book: - thanks for the note! The problem with the prior name is that it is very likely to get photos of live Red Kites in the Leeds area wrongly added to the category. My new name was designed to make it obvious that it is a single taxidermied specimen, and not a general category for the species in the Leeds area. I'll be happy to consider other options for the category name, if you can think of some. Would Category:The Leeds Red Kite (Leeds Museum specimen) be OK? - MPF (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you for your patience with this. You are very welcome to do the other ones in the set, if you like? There's more here, too. If you don't want to, let me know, and I'll go through and do them. Storye book (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Storye book: - thanks! I'll get round to it tomorrow when I've got a bit more time (I hope!) - MPF (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. Let me know if the job is too long for you. I'll happily do the rest, if you let me know. I do take a lot of photographs of each item. Storye book (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Storye book: - I've done about half of them, all the ones at any real risk of adding photos of the relevant species from outside the museums (at least, I'd hope there's no Tigers or Hippos to be found roaming the streets of Leeds 😂). Up to you whether you want to move the rest to be of the same format. With the ones I moved, I also changed to uppercase first letters in accord with IOC/IUCN standards (i.e., 'Red Kite', not 'red kite') - MPF (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your hard work. Much appreciated. And the caps are fine - that is its name, after all. I'll have a look and will do the rest in due course if it appears necessary. As I said, there are a lot of pictures there. As for the Leeds Hippo, well the newspapers always called it the Leeds Hippopotamus in the days when museums were perceived to be for adults and children both, but now that museums are are focusing mostly on children (which seems unbalanced to me, but hey what do I know) this museum's publicity material calls it the Leeds Hippo, and the newspapers and schools have followed suit. Still, it could be worse. Some museums in the UK ask the local infant schools to name their major specimen, and you get a kiddy name emblazoned on the wall next to their precious 150-year-old whale skeleton. But they are fighting for existence, because UK councils can barely afford museums now. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate files

Hi, congratulations for your work on the duplicate files I was adding the "Duplicate" tag but I recommend you to delete these files this is the best way. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: Hello, good afternoon, if you can help me with the duplicate files i will thank you. The list is here: User uploads on the later page will also please. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: thanks! I've started on some, and will carry on with more as & when I've got a bit of time! Lots of other pressing things to get on with too though . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work on the files. My greetings friend @MPF: - LeonaardoG (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @MPF: , It is forbidden to change the license of the file I authored, for example, to change the license from cc-by-sa-4.0 to (self-GFDL-author-User?-migration-relicense). -- Leonaardog (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: I don't recollect doing so? Which file are you talking about, please? There could be special exceptions, such as when a file that should be PD-US has been tagged with a more restrictive license by someone else. - MPF (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: , The file is my own work can be found here: File:2022-07-03 TV Globo Pernambuco - TV Globo Nordeste - Rede Globo Nordeste.jpg you could do that see in license template. -- Leonaardog (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: - strange! I've not edited that file (as you can see, I don't appear in the file history)! So I'm at a loss to know what the problem is . . . MPF (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: , I'm not talking about that, I just asked the question if it was forbidden to change the license of my file to another license. and if you could do it for me license template. Please. Thanks. -- Leonaardog (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: - ah, I think I understand now! Caught out by an English grammar (word order) error, you'd meant to ask a question "Is it forbidden to change the license of the file I authored...", but it came out as a statement "It is..." :-) As far as I know, the answer for previously uploaded files is, yes, you can change to a less restrictive license (e.g. cc-by-sa to cc-by), but you can't change to a more restrictive license (e.g. cc-by to cc-by-sa). For the exact details it might be better to ask on the Village Pump Copyright and licensing section; there will be people there who know more about it than I do. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: , I took my doubts about it even so I come to tell you that I am very grateful that you answered me when I needed you. Keep up this excellent work. Here goes my greetings. --Leonaardog (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @MPF: , could you help me to verify this file, please, it was uploaded recently and has a compatible license. -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: - very sorry, I can't do this one! It is from youtube, and I have youtube blocked from my computer for security reasons (their data theft and lack of an adequate privacy policy) :-) - MPF (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: Please verify this file: File:Priscils Senna, 2022-07-23.jpg uploaded from Vimeo is under a valid license. -- Leonaardog (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@LeonaardoG: - a rather sordid photo; sorry, vimeo hide their licensing details rather well, so I don't know! As above, it is better to ask on the Village Pump Copyright and licensing section where multiple people will be able to check, and someone who knows more than I do will be able to find out ;-) - MPF (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @MPF: , Please review this file: File:"(2019)" Gravação do DVD Priscila Senna - 10 anos de carreira no Clube Português do Recife.jpg. The font is from Vimeo, a Commons-compatible license/ With a better resolution in the editing file made in the Photoshop application. -- Leonaardog (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @MPF: , I need your help to verify this file: File:Luva de Pedreiro.jpg -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Birds Twitter.jpg

File:Birds Twitter.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!

Мельников Мадина (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Las Ramblas Barcelona (3936669509).jpg

This file was listed in Category:Flickr images by FaceMePLS needing human review because the author changed the license on Flickr.com. Had you followed the archive link of this work then you'd have seen that this file used to have the license it's listed under. Please mark it as having passed its review. Vera ^(talk) 21:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@1Veertje: - done, though I confess to some misgivings: the file size that shows up on the archive is markedly smaller and lower quality than the version uploaded here. That leaves open the question as to whether the Flickr uploader only uploaded small versions with the free license, and then upgraded to originals when they changed license. I can't be sure as it may be the archive that cuts the image size. - MPF (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That's definetly the Internet Archive limiting how much space they use to archive works from Flickr. It would have been quite a task for this photographer to not only change the license but also re-upload 10+ years of material under a different resolution after making that change. You had also deleted File:Swamp (2734936045).jpg and File:Swamp (2735769074).jpg, both of which have an archive link with which you can verify the license. Vera ^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki love!

File:Yellow-eyed penguin OP.jpg	Wiki love!
	Thank you so much for correcting my image! I have a few more older pictures from the same series that could do with a color correction: can I maybe nudge you when I need help? Ciell (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sure - drop me a list of the pics you'd like doing - MPF (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Another request identifying a bird

Hi MPF, once more I come to you with a request to identify a bird. Five images, starting with File:Unidentified bird at Coodanup Foreshore Reserve, October 2022 01.jpg (all in Category:Birds of Coodanup Foreshore Reserve) are of the same unidentified bird. The upturned beak is a bit unusual, and the closest I got to it is a Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus) or a Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia), but neither are a good fit. When you got some time, could you please have a look and help identify the bird? The five images I uploaded are all I got unfortunately, no further help there. Calistemon (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Calistemon: - thanks! It's a Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia; I've added them to the category, let me know if you want the files renaming - MPF (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have file mover rights so I will sort that out ASAP. Cheers, Calistemon (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Natural History of the Nightingale - John Legg

I would expect an administrator to have a better understanding than to remove scans of a document from Category:Luscinia megarhynchos "because is not is not a photograph of Luscinia megarhynchos".

The category is called "Category:Luscinia megarhynchos, not "Category:Photographs of Luscinia megarhynchos".

The word "illustrations" in "Category:Luscinia megarhynchos (illustrations)" is patently intended to refer to graphical illustrations, not textual documents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Hi Andy - look elsewhere around similar species categories. The (illustrations) subcategory is widely used for all non-photographic, non-audio items [except for distribution maps]. Two points to bear in mind: (1) people visiting the top category of a species are normally looking for files that can be used on a wikipedia page about the species, they don't want the category cluttered up with items like that document which are highly unlikely to be used on a wikipedia page; and (2) the (illustrations) subcategory typically has fewer items than the lead category, so it makes sense to place "non-normal" files in the smaller subcategory. If you can't live with it in the (illustrations) subcategory, then create a new subcategory for it. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help. Categorising non-illustrations as illustrations (or any similar miscategorisation) just to move the out of some other category, will never help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Luscinia_megarhynchos_(historical_files)

Luscinia megarhynchos (historical files) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)