User talk:Kilom691/Archive 2008

I have the impression Plymouth is not still in Valencia. :) --Paco ✉ 12:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilom691, you have transfered the image Image:Antoine Bourdelle Sappho.jpg in January 2006 to Commons. Do you remember the original filename on en.wp? The information about the author/uploader is missing. Thanks in advance. Raymond ^Disc. 09:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have put quite a lot of effort into John Gould. You may be interested in also helping us on Wikisource, as we will be collaborating on s:Author:John Gould for the next week. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt you are old enough to be the actual author of Image:Samuel F B Morse gravure.jpg. Am I wrong, or is the attribution? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have to tell you that categorizing thumb to "Artemis" was wrong. I meanwhile found appropriate Category:Artemisia II. Best, WeHaWoe 07:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image seems to have significant problems (for instance, it's not greyscale when it's supposed to be, and has mysterious rainbow color effects...). AnonMoos 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I am not an expert user of Gimp. If you can do better, please do. Frédéric 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was claiming to be a replacement for Image:Coat of arms (PSF).png‎, but right now Image:Coat_of_arms_(PSF).png‎ seems to be better... AnonMoos 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work. Thank you for the time and the positive effort. Not all of my efforts have been as successful as this one and it was a very nice few moments to go to the category and find the image sitting there and in at least as good of shape as I would have made it. Heh, and that was more than a year ago!

There is something to be said also about how saying thank you for a job well done takes much much much less time than doing a task like this myself. -- carol 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a few moments to 'pretty' the information template and things. I kind of like the {{Retouched}} template. There is a warning about it being difficult to use and it can be.

{{retouched|a few words about the changes to the image|editor=UserName|orig=Name of image.ext}}

It only accepts the UserName and not User:UserName or any wikified version of that (if it does, I haven't figured out how yet) and if you use the editor= part, the template requires either "orig=Name of image.ext" or "origoff=http:/url.to.the/image.ext" and I have used the origoff to point to the original upload when I have uploaded into the same namespace as the image that I was repairing was at.

Anyways, again, nice work! -- carol 06:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for creating Category:Crotalaria retusa. :-) I added a couple of other photos of the species that are not mine. Arria Belli | parlami 16:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, mince ! Je n'avais pas vu que tu es francophone. Désolée. Sinon, merci encore pour la catégorisation. Je fais identifier les espèces biologiques que je prends en photo sur Flickr avant de transférer les photos ici (en partie pour éviter des problèmes de nommage des fichiers sur Commons, et en partie parce que sur Flickr il sont plus rapides à identifier les espèces). Bonne continuation ! Arria Belli | parlami 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I am impressed with the files you choose to make into gallery. Will you ever be able to find files on your own that are that nicely uploaded and organized for you to engallery?

Keep up the good work and I suggest that the next step should be to add a citation to the sources of the information you are putting into the galleries. ITIS and IPNI sometimes say different things about the species so anyways, nice work and here is to a future where you can start to find the images online instead of already here as well :)

Heh, it looks like you are friends with the administration here. I am sorry if I am telling you things that you already know. -- carol (tomes) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed about a month ago you removed the [[:en:Genus species| section from most if not all of my images. I put those in there to link them back to the wikipedia page describing them. Because the summary is in English, I linked them to the English wiki. Your change now links all of them to the wiki commons page on the image, which I believe is much less helpful. I appreciate you adding catergories to the images, but unless there is some wiki commons related reason for the change, can you please mass undo all of the deletions? I do not have a bot to undo everything, and it would take several hours of clicking for me to do it. Thank you :) --Kugamazog (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I am sorry, but I have no way to mass-undo what I did, and I will not spend hours of clicking to do that. Do you really think this makes a great difference ? When the reader is redirected to the species page in Commons, he has just one more click to do to go to the species page in ANY language, provided it exists and somebody has created the interwiki link. This seem to me rather better than the ENGLISH only link. I promise I will not break any such link in the future, but I am not fully convinced that the direct link to EN is the best thing to do. Yours, Frédéric (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and that isn't so (example: Citheronia lobesis). If you click the link now it simply goes to the page...with the single picture. I put it to the English wiki because the summary was in English and I knew that there was atleast some basic context on the en wiki (since I generally made the corresponding page). My watchlist shows only the past 50 or so edits, did you remove it from ALL of my pictures? I can't imagine you did that by hand, and if you can't revert them easily, can you ask an admin to and reference or conversation? I don't spend much time on commons and only check it maybe every 3 months or so. I am under the impression that the summary section of the image is supposed to be edited only by the uploader and that it's courtesy to confirm with them before making changes. As such, I think it would be proper to find a solution to this. Thanks. --Kugamazog (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this discussion and wonder if I might comment, please?

• It is not the case that the summary section should only be edited by the uploader, but it is not a good idea to remove helpful content. Correcting a misidentified image or correcting or adding its location is welcome.
• User:Kilom691 is correct that gallery pages should include interwikilinks. Often they do not, but they should be added.
• Creating gallery pages and linking to them is a good idea. It is recommended by COM:TOL. A much-discussed advantage is that when a species is reclassified, only the category of the species page need be changed manually. A bot can recategorize individual images to be consistent with the gallery page.
• Interwiki links should be added to the bottom of gallery pages.[1] Please see Wikipedia:Wikilinks_from_the_Commons.
• Uploaders are encouraged to use {{En}} and other language tags in the image description. For species, I begin the description with the link to the Commons gallery page (the binomial name) for the species and follow it with the en tag with the common name and description. Please see Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Good_file_descriptions
• I appreciate the effort that both of you have made to have a civil discussion.
• As an administrator, I can revert edits fairly quickly although checking all of Kugamazog's 618 uploads will take awhile. However, I'd be happy to attempt to do so, if you and Kugamazog decide that is best. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I do not feel that it is necessary to revert what I did, but of course, Kugamazog should decide. I think I may have changed something like 10 of his uploads, probably less. If you have some way to find Kugamazog's images where I did something, then you can send me the list. Frédéric (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for being very helpful on this. I have been rather neglectful of the pictures I uploaded here; focusing mainly on the enwiki pages instead. I'd very much appreciate Walter's offer for the mass revert of any edits that removed the link to the enwiki from the summary of the images. I've also decided to finally getting around to making pages for the images here on wiki commons and interwikilinking them the best I can. I've already set up a picture database of my images and started at the top (Lucanidae). (Link here). --Kugamazog (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for responding to a different thread which is not on my talk page, but one of the things that got me involved here was how sad I was when I read a really good article on English wikipedia and clicked through to an image page and found it to be a wreak compared to the article. Since I have lately been working more on English Wikipedia, I have noticed that images uploaded there seem to reside in no where land unless they are being displayed on an article. So, I can see how the upload of images here and all of the additional requests might really be seen as a pain compared to what was happening there -- but image storage should be as well considered as the how the article is managed (with category and interlinking and all of that) at least, in my opinion. An opinion based on having clicked through an image in a really good article and finding myself looking at a mess. -- carol (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a note acknowledging that I've read the comments above. I'm looking for Kilom691 response. If it is only a matter of 10 image pages, it is a small problem. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I also think we should try to have a high level of quality here in commons, with interwiki links, categories, and precise descriptions of the images. I am not a great fan of galleries, but they have some use. Concerning the revert to Kugamazog pages, as far as I am concerned, you can do what you want. I suggest that the use of {{BioLinkSpecies|}} may be a good solution, if Kugamazog agrees. I would do the reverts myself, if I had a way to find the pages. Frédéric (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think BioLinkSpecies tags are fine. But, I don't think they are a substitute for gallery pages with interwiki links, e.g., Rubus_spectabilis. Such gallery pages are encouraged by COM:TOL and link the images that they hold to the various Wikipedias. They help our experts on taxonomy by making it easier for them to maintain our categories and keep them current. I should make clear that all I'm offering to do is to roll back kilom691's edits to Kugamazog's images, as a way to resolve the disagreement above. I probably won't get to it until the first part of next week, however. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for being very helpful and civil. I went through and fixed all of the images last week and made sure that each image is linked to a commons page with a category attached. I had been rather neglectful about this for some time, so I'm glad I got it done. Thanks again everyone--Kugamazog (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if the template links to galleries or not. What I do care about is that a lot of {{Seecat}} templates were applied in November 2007 that are deleting species categories and the images have had the category removed from them.

There are several things I dislike but I can only think of three right now. Undue and misapplied aggression, undue and misapplied maintenance, the feeling that someone is behind me stepping on my heels. The gallery makers that I have encountered here at commons have at one time or another delivered this feeling to me. You were responsible for that third item -- I am sorry I reacted the way I did at the time.

It might help me to understand the genus of gallery makers if you could explain to me what is apparently a lack of an ability to communicate. Is this by choice or something that has been imposed on them might be a good place to start an explanation with. There is the appearance of a lack of an attempt to communicate, even.

I put the articles on the encyclopedias, not here. My one really good gallery was invited to live at English wikipedia -- a gallery is not an article and it was explained to me that the gallery here was no longer a gallery but an article. This is an image hosting location to me and probably this idea is not going to change much.

So, in summation. No problem here -- what is the problem there? -- carol (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far I am concerned, I do prefer to have categories and I do not like them to be removed. And if I sometimes make galleries, this is not my main concern, I am not a gallery maker, I think. I like the following situation : we have a picture of a bird (a magpie, say). It is categorized in the Pica Pica category, appears in the Pica Pica page (not necessarily, but maybe if it is a nice photo) and link to the Pica Pica page. By the way, my change to the BB template also corrected an error, besides adding the link to the galleries.Frédéric (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, what error? I have not spent a lot of time looking at the wiki-template-html interface options; I will look at the change and see if I can figure out the error that was repaired, but a verbal description might help also and keep that mistake from happening again. -- carol (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH! The godforsaken curly fscking brackets! There are not enough of those things in this world now, are there.... thanks -- carol (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

-Pruneau^talk 10:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello Kilom691/Archive 2008!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichill (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in London Zoo photos. There was no plate identifing that bird. I will try to add identification tags, but first I have to sort all my photos in UK. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà, les récentes images importées en tiennent compte. De plus je wikifie le nom de l'espèce par défaut, même si l'article n'existe pas encore (il viendra forcément un jour ou l'autre). Bonne continuation. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 08:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Frédéric! I've left a comment and request on the image's discussion page. Cheers, --Wikipeder (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a response to an edit you made, you asked if what you did here was okay, and yes, that is a bit more helpful to the page, I will start adding that syntax to my page summaries as well, thanks. --Kugamazog (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour le conseil !

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 19:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

I don't actually use Inkscape to edit files (though I do use it to view and convert files). When trying to fix or improve an SVG file, I just open it in a text editor, and eliminate obvious bloat or redundancy in the coding, delete external image references (if that's what's preventing it from displaying), fiddle with the height="" and width="" attributes on the <svg tag (if there are margin problems) -- sometimes adding a viewBox="" attribute -- etc. My skills are completely different from someone who draws freehand within a vector editor to create an illustration from scratch; I really can't draw freehand at all... AnonMoos (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello kilom691, thank you for categorizing the pictures i took. greetings from germany --Z thomas (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for lightening up some of my Black-throated Trogon photos. I also have a Mantled Howler photo on Commons that I would like to use in the Wikipedia Mantled Howler article, that had to be taken from a long distance with a telephoto lens and which thus came out very dark. I was wondering if you could share with me how you lightened up the trogon photos so I could do the same for the Mantled Howler photo. Merci. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cicada orni (Marseille).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Crop is a bit tight but the image details within the focal plane are good enough. --Richard Bartz 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the talk page here that I have left a message that was honestly complimentary and then one that was sarcastic. This one is sincere or something like that.

I just found Image:Abroma augustum Blanco clean.jpg from almost a year ago that was cleaned by you. I have been working with these images from that book and have learned a lot about renovating them. I am here about this before uploading my version because I am curious to know if you are interested in renewing images still and would like to know some of the things I have learned. My upload is going to be nicer than yours -- I am looking at a photograph of the plant and often I work on different color areas on different layers. My reasoning to try that was that the inks age differently so after so much time, to adjust all of the colors the same amount and have this be successful is impossible. Also, there seems to be a tendency that once the pink from the effects of the acid in the paper is removed that there is always too much blue left in the image.

Alright, I am ahead of the answer to my question and am already sharing information about what I have learned, sorry. Let me know if you are interested in assisting with this really nice renovation of these beautiful images.

• 
  Original
• 
  Yours
• 
  Mine
• 
  My cropped version

The gallery should "fill in" soon. (I still remember how irritating it was when you followed me making gallery of the categories I was working. I am glad to not have that happen any longer, that I know of.) -- carol (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carol. You have done a very nice work on this image. Beautiful colors, indeed. Your are certainly right to say that colors have to be corrected, due to aging of ink. You ask me if I am still interested in cleaning images and if I want to help you. Well, I am not really an expert of gimp, so I do not feel able to do such nice cleaning job. And I have no real desire to do so either. Sorry.

And also all my apologies if I have irritated you at some point by making galleries. I am trying to bring some order to commons, in my humble way. Frédéric (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way to know how to do something is to do it -- it is one of the ways and perhaps the best. I asked you because your cleaning of the images seemed to be more than just a simple white level adjustment so you are already somewhat advanced in abilities. One of the things about GIMP is that there is no one expert. The software is used for several different tasks. The source code is quite large and has many parts so much that even the developers did not know of some things in it at some point when I was involved. The communities "expert" makes more images with inkscape so do not even rely on them to know who or what an expert is. Other applications use the same algorithms so honestly, to do this task it could be done with Photoshop or PaintshopPro or at the commandline with Image Magick if you have a feeling for the numerical settings.

I have "gotten over" that small amount of time you were an irritant to me and am here simply because I admire your work still and perhaps also because you have not been an irritant and might know now how not to be one.

The five or six years of world-wide acknowlegement problems I seem to have been involved in; I have honestly tried not to participate in this. You are not a beginner in image renovation. I am myself re-doing some of my early renovations since I have learned much in the last few months. No person is born an expert in anything and I honestly believe that appointing an expert will always fail. -- carol (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh, the pink flower was all wrong. I am just here changing the link to the original... -- carol (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, such uploader of the image Image:Johannes Thiele.jpg does no exist. What should be the correct uploader name? --Snek01 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right, it seems that this user does not exist. I have no idea what happened, but it must have existed at the time I uploaded the image. Sorry that I cannot help. I guess you want to give a source to the image. Good luck, Frédéric (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ? Wa da ya mean ? Frédéric (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kilom691, after your last change in «Template:Translation table» is the first line not more correct. Can you help? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Frédéric, pardon, there was another problem probably. Today the template is ok. Yesterday was behind the first name an empty line. I wish you all the best for the New Year. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I was just looking at File:Heritiera littoralis Blanco2.341.png and considering how to manage it. Within the next few days, I will have a renovation of the original which is more similar to all of the other renovations I have made. What I was going to do, if you had not been active here, was to re-upload the image with the "-cleaned" in the name as many of your other renovations have appeared. I think that your image renovations are very nice examples of what can be done quickly. My renovations need a lot of disc space and other memory from my computer and a lot of my time (some of mine might take over an hour for me to arrive at what I think was what the original painting/print looked like -- all guess work on my part also...). So, to summarize, I think that your renovations are quite nice depending on the availability of computer "umph" and time and are also kind of nice examples for where auto-white point fails for these aged prints. Additionally, I like to see yours with all of the others in the "other versions" gallery I make after I upload mine.

Would you consider reverting to the original and reuploading your "quick Clean-up" into the File:Heritiera littoralis Blanco2.341-cleaned.png namespace? I can do this but if you do this, it maintains your user name in the upload history.

Also, please let me know if anything I have said here is offensive or discouraging to you -- that would not have been my goal and unfortunately, it seems that this is what I have done. -- carol (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why we add links to non-existent pages on Wikipedia - to encourage someone to write the article - but what is the point of doing this on Commons? I don't think I've ever noticed this done before. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Ok, I understand that this is not useful when the link is red. But one day, it may become blue. Let me explain why I did this : each time I meet a binomial name (like Picus Viridis or Aglais urticae for instance), I change it to the correct version (in italic and with no capital on the second word) : Picus viridis. And most of the time, I also add a link like that Picus viridis. I am not sure that this is really useful. But when the link exists, it makes a little sense, no ? Yours, Frédéric (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You removed category I added to this photo and put again Micromys minutus. I am pretty sure, that it's not this species - I've kept harvest mice for few years as pets and thy look nothing like on this photo. Also I am a biologist and I used to work on rodents, so my experience is quite good on this field. Please revert your edits on this file. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. I have added a word of warning on the description, to help poor guys like me who believe what they read.. Yours, Frédéric (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Kilom691! can you delete "File:Charles Clerke.jpg"? i have upload a better version. Thanks

Hello. Well, I am not an administrator here, so I can only ask (just as you can do yourself) for the deletion. But, first, what is the name of the better version ? Why is there only one file in the Charles Clerke category ? Did you known that you can upload better versions of the same image under the same name ?

Yours, Frédéric (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that indeed you have upoladed it under the same name. This is good. Then, there is no need to delete anything (and no way to do it either). The old version is kept (archived) but will not appear anywhere else. Yours, Frédéric (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thanking you for the effort you've put into helping to categorize the Wenceslas Hollar collection. I have many more interesting PD images on the way, so I hope there will be many people like you to help cat them. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilom691, i see you're busy adding cats, great! Please see take a look at Commons talk:Deutsche Fotothek#Getting the images categorized. You might find the new bot useful. Multichill (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Well, I am not sure I understand what bots can do. I would like to see all the pictures of windmills put in a correct category.. There exists Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, subject Mühle and I think (?) I have created Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, subject Mühle & Windmühle & Bockwindmühle... Many pages should link to the second one by some kind of automatic suggestion process, but this seems broken by a bad line-break, see for instance File:Fotothek df rp-a 0210003 Danstedt. Mühle Ostermann oder Kampe, Baujahr 1817, Wiederaufbau nach Brand 1835.jpg Yours, Frédéric (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, subject Mühle is way to general, but if you take a look at User:Multichill/Fotothek building categories, you'll find a lot of categories on which the bot could work. Multichill (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you tagged a image for rename but your not on the checkpage for the bot (Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage) Please go to the the talk page and put your name up for approval so that the bot can automatically rename your request instead of waiting for someone else on that list to confirm for you. Betacommand 01:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bien compris merci! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Frédéric, en effet j'ai eu un souci avec le modèle d'upload, qui cassait complètement les autres modèles présents à l'origine dans la description du fichier. J'ai fait ce que j'ai pu pour rétablir une présentation correcte sans pour autant faire disparaître les informations. Je tâcherai de faire plus attention la prochaine fois. Cordialement, Alchemica (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your excellent job extracting the elements of File:Heroes of the Slave Trade Abolition from NPG.jpg‎. Very professional results. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I made a mistake for one of them, resulting in a dark background.. This could be corrected if needed, but there are better images, so..

Frédéric (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altena - Feuerwache Bachstraße 03 ies.jpg is already categorized with Category:Feuerwache Bachstraße and this one has the parent categories Category:Fire stations in Altena and Category:Bachstraße (Altena). An additional Category:Altena doesn't make any sense! -- Ies (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Please excuse this wrong move. Yours, Frédéric (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Dalou est bien un sculpteur français. Pourquoi donc avoir ôter la catégorie "Sculptors from France" des fichiers File:Dalou d'aprés Pierre Petit.jpg, File:Dalou par Pierre Petit.jpg‎, et de la page Jules Dalou‎ ?... Une erreur due à l'usage de HotCat.js sans doute ? Cordialement. 9jules9 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. J'ai oté cette catégorie, car elle fait double usage. En effet, la catégorie Aimé-Jules Dalou est elle-meme contenue dans la categorie "Sculptors from France". Donc, par un principe tres general de commons, qui est d'eviter les redondances dans les categories, il convient de s'assurer que les fichiers contenus dans "catégorie Aimé-Jules Dalou" ne soient pas aussi dans la categorie "Sculptors from France". En particulier, vous pouvez voir par vous-meme, que la catégorie "Sculptors from France" contient essentiellement des catégories, et tres peu de pages au nom des sculpteurs. Ces pages sont en effet rangées normalement dans la catégorie de ce sculpteur. Est-ce que je suis clair dans mes explications ? Bien à vous, Frédéric (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utile précision, merci. Il faudrait donc peut-être également supprimer la redondance "Antoine-Augustin Préault" ? Et puis il y a "Raymond Duchamp-Villon" qui semble vide. Je vous laisse juge. Cordialités. 9jules9 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]