User talk:TeunSpaans

I never categorize pictures. There are several reasons for this:

• Categories offer little or no possibilities to format or organize content.
• You need to go looking for a bot operator to rename them
• Not sure if it still the case, but the organization of categories often used to be a mess. Category A was in category B, Category B was in category C, and category C was in category A.
• Categories are intended to be hierarchical, forcing its users to think in straightjackets. The world is a network, not a hierarchy.
• I believe it is time to abolish categories and replace them by something useful.
• People here spend literally hundreds of hours to go through every page in commons in order to attach a category to a picture which is already listed on a page. Com'n, try using your brains and find something useful to do.

Also see the vote commons had on this topic

I don't remember i removed a genus cat recently. If i did it, it was a mistake... Note : if you import pictures, please categorize them, at least with the species cat. Best regards. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guerin, thx for your quick reaction. According to the guideline i alsways put them in a gallery - never in a cat - i never heard a good argument for double registration. Teun Spaans 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just every media should be categorized. I'm using categories and galleries both together, because i navigate either using categories either using galleries. Another point is that it's start to have a lot of pictures for some species, so it should be good to have a categorie for all the pictures by each species and to have a gallerie for the most interesting pictures by each species too. Note : i you really don't like categories, don't add them at the level species, but don't remove them if others do (like me...). Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 21:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a vote that media should be organized by either having them in a gallery or in a category. There is no authorized statement that every media should be in a category.

It is very good that we start to have msany pix for tsome species, as they show the variety within a species. many pix does not mean a need to have a cat. There is no agreement within ToL to have only some of the best pix in a gallery, rather galleries should be uzed to organize the available pix in the best available manner. Teun Spaans 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some points : you are not force at all to categorize pictures. But uncategorizing pictures and undoing the job of other contributors was a mistake : they is also no statement that every media should be only in a gallery and not in a category, finally it just generated conflicts and project:TOL started to be considered as making problems. I think is to do what we like either categories or galleries, but not to undo the work of others without good reasons. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 12:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guerin, thx for your kind message. Yes, the original cause that the poll was organized was that some members uncatted pix.

But the actual text of the poll went further: we must confirm to the rest of commons: pix should go in a category, and galleries should only contaijn "the best" pix. That will probably mean the photographic best. Categories have virtually no possibilities to organize pix, so for organization we have te rely on pages. But if galleries are supposed to contain only the best pictures, we dont have any ways to make a digital herbarium susch as i started doing at Rhododendron hirsutum. Also neat organizations like quercus robur or Elephas become impossible.

Another problem is that afaik we currently lack tools to compare a gallery and a category to see which pix are in one but not in the other.

Of course it remains possible to strive for completeness in species, but it becomes a lot harder or impossible to strive for completeness in other tyopes of diversity . Teun Spaans 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Teun Spaans, I am writing to ask about the use of a couple of images of yours from Wikimedia. I am working for a non-commercial biodiversity group “Biochange” in Ireland, making a web-based identification key of the plants of West Ireland. We would like to have images of plants next to their text descriptions.

I wanted to use some of your images from Wikimedia (of Rorippa amphibia and Gentianella campestris). These are accompanied by a GNU licence. In this licence it states that any “derivatives to be available under the same license”. Our identification key will be freely available for the public to use, however for various reasons I am unable to release it under a Creative Commons / GNU licence. Would you be able to grant me permission to use this image in the identification key nonetheless? (I would of course attribute it appropriately and the GNU licence would accompany the picture).

It would be very valuable for us if I could use these images as they are of plants I have not yet been able to find to photograph. Yours sincerely, Chloé Galley

You have my permission to consider it sufficient to mention my name as the author. Teun Spaans 20:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my months long task of making templates that should work on both galleries and categories for plant taxonomy, I have been using de.wikipedia for information concerning the Strasburger classification.

I find mis-spellings and missing genus and name controversies everywhere, as that one that you found recently. Yesterday however, I encountered a whole set of genus names which are not to be found at de.wikipedia. I bring this problem here to your talk page as you mentioned some knowledge of the plants content at that wikipedia. Many of the members of the old family Dicrastylidaceae who have somewhat been moved around into the family Lamiaceae's subfamily Prostantheroideae and tribe Westringieae.

My feelings about this is that there might be a subfamily not mentioned in the article de:Lippenblütler. Lippenblütler is a dastardly family to attempt to document logically, by the way and in defense of the article authors; and that is more than a feeling as I can provide plenty of documentation and examples to support this statement.

So, I bring these feelings and facts here with the idea that you might know of people at de.wikipedia who can find this missing group of genus. -- carol (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de:Spezial:Linkliste/Bartblumen <-- has an article but is not included in the article for de:Lippenblütler that is just one example, there might be others. I don't know what to do with them here. -- carol (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol, thank you for asking.

Personally I believe we should not try to copy entire taxonomies here - we should leave that to species. Imho 4 or 5 levels of taxonomy should be sufficent, for example species - genus - family - magnoliids/monocots/eudicots for plants, or species - genus - family - order for insects. Listing more levels will just increase the maintenance burden.

That said, I will try to look up some names of botanists at the german wiki. The german botanists are generally very knowledgable.

I think de:User:Franz Xaver is a botanist by profession, but he is on line at wiki only when not in the field. He certainly was involved in the choice of the taxonomy system on de:.

The Austrian de:User:Tigerente is very active, and a software engineer by profession.

I never see de:User:Denis Barthel around here.

Ulf Melig is a trained botanist]].

de:User:Ayacop was probably also involved in the choice of the taxonomy system on de:, but i'm not sure on that.

German people are usually fairly fluent in english, and they want mind if you address them in english on their german talk page, certainly not if you start with a short excuse like "sorry to address you in english..."

good luck Teun Spaans 04:15, 22 October 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, TeunSpaans!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Grote sneeuwroem DSCF5852.JPG is uncategorized since 27 March 2009.
• Image:Grote sneeuwroem DSCF5853.JPG is uncategorized since 27 March 2009.
• Image:Cercis canadensis 'Forest play' 04-05-2006 14.01.18.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Kievitsbloem 22-04-2006 16.05.04.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Dag Teun,

Ik heb maar een onnozele, kleine digitale camera.

Ik vond deze planten in het onderhout bij Vaujany (Grandes Rousses, Franse Alpen), dus met weinig daglicht. In deze niet ideale omstandigheden kon ik weinig focussen. Ik wilde ook niet de flits gebruiken, die de zachte kleuren van deze bloem - lilaroze bloem met smaragdgroene buis - flets zouden laten verschijnen. Zo werd het op een derde, onscherpe close-up ervan, die ik niet op Wikimedia heb durven oploaden.

De oorspronkelijke foto's zijn wel wat breder van totae omvang met een (te) kleine plant, die verloren staat in hun midden. Daarom heb ik de randen ervan wat weggenomen.

Jammer genoeg heb ik niet de gelegenheid gehad om deze zeldzame, amper 5 cm grote plant een tweede keer onder betere omstandigheden te kunnen fotogaferen.

Beste groeten, --Réginald (To reply) 17:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Teun,

Jouw twee foto's File:Colchicum autumnale 001.jpg en File:Colchicum autumnale 002.jpg zijn duidelijk niet van Colchicum alpinum, maar van Colchicum autumnale.

De gewone herfsttijloos, Colchicum alpinum, groeit overvloedig overal in de Alpen, waar hij vanaf midden augustus bloeit, dus 15 dagen eerder dan in het laagland.

Het zeldzame Colchicum alpinum heeft kleinere, slankere bloemen, die een fijne smaragdgroene buis hebben (duidelijk te zien op mij foto's). Deze miniatuur plant, die van midden juli tot midden augustus bloeit, wordt ook niet geregistreerd in de omgeving van de Mont Blanc. In Zwitserland is die slechts te vinden in de streek rond Zermatt (zie vindplaatsen van Colchicum alpinum), waar ik ze niet gevonden heb. Ik heb ze maar twee keer waargenomen in de Dauphiné, in de Grandes Rousses bij Vaujany en Alpe d'Huez.

• 
  Colchicum autumnale
• 
  Colchicum alpinum

Beste botanische groeten, --Réginald (To reply) 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Een ander verschil: Colchicum alpinum heeft de 6 meeldraden op dezelfde hoogte. Bij Colchicum autumnale zijn 3 meedraden hoger geplaatst dan de 3 andere - het geval bij jouw foto's. --Réginald (To reply) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Reginald,

Allereerst bedankt dat je de moeite neemt om mijn bijdragen kritisch te bekijken. Dat is altijd goed, omdat een determinatiefout bij veldwerk relatief vaak voorkomen. Vorig jaar kwam ik nog een aardig verhaaltje tegen hoe professionele biologen bij een kruisbloemige de mist ingingen.

Zo te zien moet ik het helaas met alle 3 de redenen oneens zijn. De informatie die je geeft ontbeert een bron voor de smaragdgroene stengel. Dat lijkt me geen correcte eis. Uit welke bron haal je dat?

Ik heb 3 bronnen, die ik ook in het nederlandstalige artikel gebruikt heb:

• Flora Helvetica, 4e Auflage, 2007.
• Aplen Pflanze door Oskar Angerer en Thomas Muer
• Alpenflora, een nederlandse vertaling van Anthony Huxleys Mountainflowers in colours.

De kwaliteit van de laatste vind ik iets minder, maar de eerste twee staan bekend als goed. Geen van deze 3 noemt een groene stengel als eis. In de tekening van Alpenflora is de stengel licht roze getint, die op de foto in Alpen Pflanzen is lichtgroen, maar dat staat niet bij de tekst van het artikel vermeld. De foto in de flora helvetica toont geen stengel. Zie ook bijvoorbeeld foto bij de universiteit van karlsruhe.

Je tweede argument is de lokatie. De Flora Helvetica kent in de 4e Auflage gedetailleeerde verspreidingskaartjes, en hoewel een exact lokatie van het dal altijd lastig is, ligt het Val de Ferret zo te zien wel in het verspreidingsgebied. Ik kan je evt een foto van de pagina emailen. Is het mogelijk dat de franse link die je geeft een aantal stations geeft waar ze bestudeerd worden, maar niet de totale verspreiding? Tenzij de franse site goede argumenten heeft, ga ik er vanuit dat de zwitsers beter weten waar hun planten groeien dan de fransen weten waar de soorten in zwitserland te vinden zijn.

Je laatste argument, de lengte van de meeldraden, lijkt op verwarring met bulbocodium vernum te berusten. Die heeft meeldraden van ongelijke lengte: 3 lange en 3 korte. De meeldraden van deze planten hadden allen ongeveer dezelfde lengte. Ongeveer, omdat er altijd wel iets verschil in de lengte zit. Ik heb er speciaal opgelet, omdat ik B. vernum als kandidaat wilde uitsluiten. Die bloeit overigens in het voorjaar, maar dat zag ik pas later.

Bij de determinatie heb ik verder volgens de bestimmungsschlussel van de FH vooral gelet op de afwezigheid van bladeren (waardoor B. vernum werd uitgesloten), de lengte van de bloembladen (2,5-3cm lang, in een geval 3,3cm), waardoor de keuze direct naar C. alpinum ging. Immers C. autumnale heeft bloembladen van 4-6 cm.

Kun je je hierin vinden? Teun Spaans 18:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Teun, ik wil niet pennenstrijden.

Ik heb de twee soorten in mijn tuin (zie de foto's van beide soorten die ik op Commons upgeloaded heb). Ik bevestig dat wat ik schrijf over de meeldraden juist is. Het is ook één van de kenmerken die gebruikt worden voor de determinatie van de soorten op p. 291 in de oude flora van Bonnier:

• Stigmates très recourbés et prolongés sur le style et 3 étamines attachées plus haut que les 3 autres ... : Colchicum autumnale.

Op het exemplaar op uw foto File:Colchicum autumnale 001.jpg staan 3 meeldraden hoger dan de drie andere, en op uw foto File:Colchicum autumnale 002.jpg zijn de stempels duidelijk gebogen. Het gaat dus zeker om een Colchicum autumnale en niet om een Colchicum alpinum, een veel kleinere plant, die de 6 meeldraden op dezelfde hoogte heeft en kleinere, niet gebogen stempels.

De smaragdgroene buis is inderdaad niet een vereiste. Eén van de twee exemplaren van de foto bij de Universiteit van Karlsruhe heeft er wel een. Hetzelfde gelt onder andere ook voor de foto op [1].

Over de verspreiding in Zwitserland kan ik niet oordelen.

Bulbocodium vernum (thans Colchicum bulbocodium) heeft vrije tepalen en geen bloembuis, en bloeit tussen de verschijnende bladeren in de vroege lente. Deze soort die ik ook in mijn tuin heb, kan dus niet verward worden met andere Colchicum soorten.

Beste groeten, --Réginald (To reply) 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Réginald,

Dank voor je antwoord. Ik denk er over na, ook omdat ik niet op een pennenstrijd zit te wachten. Deze argumenten klinken beter, in de zin van beter onderbouwd, dan de vorige. Toch ben ik nog niet overtuigd. Teun Spaans 04:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Teun,

Colchicum autumnale heeft sterk gebogen stempels, zoals op jouw foto DSCF8544 Colchichum alpinum.

Ik heb juist een derde foto van Colchicum alpinum opgeladen, die ook genomen werd in de Grandes Rousses. Deze foto is wel van mindere kwaliteit, maar toont duidelijk aan (linkse bloem) de kenmerkende rechte, knotsvormige stempels.

Ben je nu overtuigd? --Réginald (To reply) 10:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: De kenmerkende stempels van Colchicum alpinum zijn duidelijk te zien op [2] --Réginald (To reply) 12:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald, dank voor je email, ik heb zojuist geantwoord. Er zijn nog een paar dingen die ik niet begrijp, maar daar hoop ik de Komende tijd nog achteraan te gaan. Waarschijnlijk zal ik op een duitstalig forum de mening van de bezoekers vragen, niet naar de identificatie van de planten, maar naar de argumenten en kenmerken. Ik hou je op de hoogte. Teun Spaans 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the Categories "Fossil xxx" is occurring on Wp:ToL (here). As a member of the project you input is requested in to gain a larger view of the communities opinion on how to handle the points raised. Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer's Barnstar

Hi TeunSpaans! My name is Edoardo Bit, I am an architect and also a “young researcher” of the University of Ferarra (Italy). I am writing a book on the “green walls technologies” and I have found very interesting some photos in your Wikimedia Commons page. So, I would kindly ask you if I can use them in my book. Obviously, if you gently decide to grant me the permission, your name (or your Wikimedia Commons nickname) and the link of the pictures will be correctly cited in the credits of my publication. The pictures which I would use are: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zuurbes_R0021688.JPG?uselang=it http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gele_dovenetel_DSCF3597.JPG Thank you very much! I hope you will attend my request… My e-mail is: edoardo.bit@gmail.com Bye, Edoardo Edoardo.bit (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Teun Spaans,

for our student textbook about Charles Darwin (Die Entstehung der Arten, illustrated and commented by Paul Wrede and Saskia Wrede) we kindly ask you for permission to use the coloured photo of the Flower (Seifenkraut in German), Saponaria officinalis.

Our book will be published in German by VCH-Wiley. It is addressed to beginners in biology like students or highly educated laymen. Publication will be December 2012.

With best regards

Paul Wrede

Prof. Paul Wrede Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin Institut für Molekularbiologie und Bioinformatik Arnimallee 22 14195 Berlin (Germany) Email: paul.wrede@charite.de --193.175.73.204 13:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Teun,

for our student textbook about Charles Darwin (Die Entstehung der Arten, illustrated and commented by Paul Wrede and Saskia Wrede) we kindly ask you for permission to use the nice coloured photo of Saponaria officinalis (Seifenkraut in German).

Our book will be published in German by VCH-Wiley. It is addressed to beginners in biology like students or highly educated laymen. Publication will be December 2012.

With best regards

Paul Wrede

Prof. Paul Wrede Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin Institut für Molekularbiologie und Bioinformatik Arnimallee 22 14195 Berlin (Germany) Email: paul.wrede@charite.de --Paul wrede (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you have my permission Teun Spaans 19:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Teun Spaans,

I am contacting you on behalf of Dr. Jane Goodall (www.janegoodall.org). Dr. Goodall is writing a book called Seeds of Hope: Wisdom and Wonder from the World of Plants (Grand Central Publishing, 2013), and would like to include your photo of an opium poppy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slaapbol_R0017601.JPG). We hope that you will grant us permission to publish your photo, along with an appropriate credit line which you may supply.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Christin

Christin M. Jones Manager, Special Projects Office of the Founder - Global The Jane Goodall Institute 1593 Spring Hill Rd., Ste. 550 Vienna, VA 22182 USA Phone: 703-682-9220 Fax: 703-682-9312 Email: cjones@janegoodall.org www.janegoodall.org

Dear Christin Jones,

I hereby grant Dr. Jane Goodall permission to use this photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slaapbol_R0017601.JPG). Plz credit it with my name (Teun Spaans) and add a note that the cut and photo were made for educational purposes only.

Teun Spaans 04:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb deze foto op de pagina van Muizenoortje gezet. De naam van het bestand zegt "kelk", maar zichtbaar is het behaarde omwindsel (de plant is een composiet): er is geen echte "kelk" maar die bestaat hoogstens uit wat haren = pappus. Is het sowieso mogelijk de naam van het bestand te veranderen? PAvdK (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TeunSpaans: heeft U interesse om hieraan mee te werken? Lotje (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesse wel, maar mijn prioriteiten liggen momenteel elders. Bedankt voor de uitnodiging. Teun Spaans 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argynnis niobe-Europe.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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

LamBoet (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Deere 8430T.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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: COM:Toys Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

MB-one (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpmyx/why-is-this-flower-on-wikipedia-suddenly-getting-90-million-hits-per-day

Putting up some good numbers! :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phellinus hippophaecola Duindoornvuurzwam 10-08-2007 15.05.14.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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Rudolphous (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phellinus hippophaecola Duindoornvuurzwam 10-08-2007 15.07.14.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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Rudolphous (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plantae 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! čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staelduinse bos 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 gallery, 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. 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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posbank 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 gallery, 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. 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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]