User talk:MPF/archive2

Fulica

Hi MPF: I wonder if you'd be kind enough to check this edit, please?[1] If it was in western U.S., rather than Africa, I would say Fulica americana. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Albiinopulu.jpg

thumb|Spotting is usually due to leucism Partial leucistic Rock-Dove - this can't be albinism, because an albinotic animal can't produce black melanin, therefore it must be leucism, like in most spottet animals. --Kersti (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Acantholyda hierogliohica >> Acantholyda hieroglyphica

TX--Beentree (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notice

Deutsch

Dear MPF/archive2. I am writing to you to inform you that because of inactivity, you may lose your adminship on Commons.

Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a two-week poll on the proposed policy's talk page).

If you want to keep your adminship, you have to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days. Note that if you don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will then lose the adminship anyways.

Thank you,
abf /talk to me/ 11:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

link versus cat

Hi MPF, thanks for improving images, I have seen incidentally, that You have removed the category of some images I had uploaded and instead added a link to the gallery page, I would suggest to have both, because after the removal of the category the bot BotMultichill visited the images too and added {{Uncategorized|... - imho this is a Sisyphean task we are doing there, and I hope You can agree to leave the categories at images, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ab plant 49.jpg

I also shot fruits --Butko (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Extinct Taxa Categorization

May I inquire as to why removing taxa which are extinct from the regular taxonomy and placing them in the segregate Fossil section is better then leaving them in the hierarchy and also categorizing the individual images which show fossils in the fossil section along with the regular taxonomy? Yes there are a number of taxa which are only represented by fossils at this time but there are an equal number which have diagrams, reconstructions, etc.. along with them in the category, the fossils are dual categorized and the main cat is in the taxonomy without any complaints. --Kevmin (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So the category that you are looking for is actually Category:Extinct plants, which is for taxa which are extinct, be the media of a fossil or of a statue, or of a illustration. There are fossils present in commons that represent extant species and there are statues/illustrations etc which are not fossils but also represent extinct taxa. there are a number of instances where the only media for extinct taxa are illustrations. They should rightly be categorized , and are categorized, with the overall taxonomic structure and are additionally categorized in the respective category there extinct type. For example, Dinosaurs are categorized into both Reptiles extinct reptiles thus they can be found by searching either way. As someone who works a lot with the fossils on commons I know I can find them in the fossil hierarchy but also like to see them included with the extant representatives to give perspective. This is a debate which should be put to the larger community I think --Kevmin (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think adding daggers to he categorization would work fine to denote that a particular taxon is extinct, and still be present with the rest of the genera, species, etc...--Kevmin (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Acer platanoides range

Hi, from my own knowledge of forest managing in this region and as published in Atlas de la flore d'Auvergne, Acer platanoides is also native to whole Auvergne, obviously in highlands (in lowlands it could be subspontaneous from amenity plantations). So the range map should be at least extended like this : Image:Acer platanoides.png. Cheers. --B.navez (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tilia × europaea

Hello, MPF, you set the name of the article from Tilia x europaea to Tilia × europaea. The writing in all texts is right and ok.But to search the article or the category it is difficult to find the "×" by normal keyboards. For example, I do'nt know, where the "×" on my german keyboard is to find. I think, the "x" in the title is the possibility of a compromise. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Infrared 02603-tree.jpg

Added. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi MPF,

Thanks a lot for correcting the information about Image:Pansy close-up.jpg! —bdesham ★ 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Adansonia gregorii

I admit that when the change to this category came up in my watchlist I went "What the hell now!" and started to look into it. Please forgive my reaction....

The first place I looked was at APNI http://www.cpbr.gov.au/cgi-bin/apni?taxon_id=232475 and when I was putting the {{Badname}} template on Category:Adansonia gregorii I clicked through the APNI link so that I could put the link on the deletion request and that is the reason I am here now. http://www.cpbr.gov.au/cgi-bin/apni?taxon_id=20946

How come APNI has so much more information (maps and photographs and a paper trail) at the old name and not at the newer name? I have no idea the reason that I opted for greggorii over gibbosa at the time and I am not here to make sure that it remains the way I made it. I do, however, think that I would once again opt for gregorii over gibbosa because of the quality of the APNI pages and would like to know your reasoning.

Also, please consider requesting deletion instead of the redirection, I try to make it simple for the administration who conduct the deletions and second check my work by providing the documentation for my requests on the categories I request be deleted. Also, the documentation will appear for any administrator who is requesting that deleted pages or categories be restored so it is a process that seems to work well for everyone, now and in the future. -- carol (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Forestry images

Thanks, I've been cropping off the watermarks for awhile now and am currently uploading the images at the highest resolution availible to non-members (768 x 512). I did sign up but I have forgotten all my details! Million Moments (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oak Branch in Autumn.JPG

You wrote about location. It's South Sihote-Alin, between Nakhodka and Partizansk. I think probably it is Mongolian (Manjourian) Oak (Quercus mongolica). --Pauk (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Juniperus oxycedrus vs macrocarpa

Hi MPF, I'm the author of these photos:

• File:Juniperus oxycedrus g1.jpg
• File:Juniperus oxycedrus g2.jpg
• File:Juniperus oxycedrus g3.jpg
• File:Juniperus oxycedrus g4.jpg

Please do not edit data, because I'm sure that this plant is a Juniperus oxycedrus and not macrocarpa:

1. Cones are not longer than 10-12 mm; macrocarpa have usualjy cones large 12-18 mm, but the plant in the photo hasn't got any cone so large
2. The plant and other presents in my school was given by Ente Foreste della Sardegna as Juniperus oxycedrus and not as Juniperus macrocarpa.
3. Leaves cannot used to find the species. J. oxycedrus has leaves 5-20 mm long and 1-2 mm broad (see en:Juniperus oxycedrus), J. macrocarpa has leaves 12-20 mm long and 2-3 mm broad. Almost the leaves in the plant of photo are long 15-17 mm and broad 1,5-2 mm. thanks --gian_d (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but English isn't my language, I speak it too bad. I'll change cade to prickly, thanks --gian_d (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Unknown plant-75.jpg

Thank you for helping with identification! Could you please also take a look on File:Unknown plant-75.jpg. It may be Arbutus menziesii. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Cedrus atlantica hort.jpg

• Hi,

Thank you for your care, but I am pretty sure this is Cedrus atlantica, a variant of Cedrus libani. It looks exactly like the one on the flag of Lebanon (and the ones labelled «Cedrus atlantica» in Kew Gardens). Himalayan cedar looks a bit like a weeping willow. I will revert to the previous version. --Abanima (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, I consulted a professional botanist (though not a dendrologist) first, and she said it is likely to be atlantica. She has the advantage of having seen and examined this very tree (not just a photo) and comparing it to cedars in Kew Gardens on the same day.

If it happens that you visit London, the tree is located here , not far from Richmond Park.

Regetfully, I am not a botanist, so I wouldn't be able to confidently tell second year shoots from younger or older ones :(

I think I must have close-up images of the leaves somewhere in my archive but I don't think it is worth uploading them to Commons. Yes, the branch on the left is reminiscent of deodara. --Abanima (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Unknown plant-10.jpg

Could you please take a look at this image? It may be gall from Califronia Gall Wasp (Andricus quercuscalifornicus) (based on "Field Guide to Plant Galls of California and other Western States" by Ronald A. Russo). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for help! I'll try to find this book in library and read oaks chapter more carefully. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Larus hyperboreus

Hi MPF,

I noticed this edit to an image page of mine where you identify the gulls as being Larus hyperboreus. First of all, thank you for taking your time to consider the Larus species in the image. Although I agree that is a very plausible id, I am personally a little bit uncomfortable about replacing that unidentified gull category with Category:Larus hyperboreus. I have tried to identify the species but as I recall from my reference book there are other Larus species in the area which could also match with the ones seen on the photograph. So, are you really certain that is Larus hyperboreus? And if yes, how do you reach that conclusion?

Kind regards. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi MPF,

Thank you for your reply. It seems like you know what you are doing Just wanted to be sure as I prefer unidentified over misidentified, but now it is in the even better state: Identified. Thanks! -- Slaunger (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi MPF,
thank you for the palm identification in File:Nizza 0051a.jpg. A happy new year to you. --Túrelio (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)