User talk:Ptelea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ptelea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  MPF 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Elm

Welcome back to Wikipedia. I found your contributions on Ulmaceae very good, continue so. Berton 19:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also

It's not considered good etiquette to remove comments from your talk page. Again, this is just so you know. DS 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS G9

Hi, I'm a new user to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm doing this right..... are you the same user who has written the very interesting set of articles on the G-class of submarines? I was especially interested in the one on G9 as one of my relatives lost their life in this incident. I was wondering whether you knew any more of the names on the photo as I'm guessing he was one of these men but don't know who. Any more information you have would be great. Many thanks.Nikicb 10:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nikicb. Thanks for your interest. Yes, I also wrote the article on the G-class. I'm not a naval historian, but the grandson of G9's sole survivor, William Drake. I regret I can't be of much help with identifying your relative. I have a list of the crew lost in the incident, from which it is evident that three of those who died would not be in the photo, namely John Dinnis, Victor Bareham and Henry Lesley, who had only just joined the boat for training or [Lesley] to conduct W/T trials. One can also speculate that the sailor given the honour of holding the model of the ship would have been the youngest member, almost certainly the Boy Telegraphist, James Nicoll. My grandfather died aged 80 in 1974, but typically never spoke of the incident. The information I have was generously supplied by Researcher Mr Brian Head, at the RN sub. museum*, Gosport, and I'm aware the museum also held a photo of my grandfather, so perhaps they could help you too. *RN Sub. Museum, Haslar Jetty Road, Gosport PO12 2AS. Tel. 023 92 52 92 17. Best wishes, Ptelea 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for this - it's such a fascinating story. My gt gt uncle was Albert Rees Williams who I guess must be on your list. I will follow up with the museum. Best wishes, Nikicb 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nikicb, Albert Rees Williams was listed as Stoker 1st Class, service number K.9680. The wreck of the sub. has yet to be located, but if discovered would be protected as a War Grave. I've been unable to find a photo of the G9, should you be successful please let me know. Best wishes, Ptelea 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm

Your contributions to Elm are quite detailed, and I congratulate you for finding all that info, but much of it is too specific for the genus page. It also overwhelms the reader and diverts attention from the general information below the list of species. I'd prefer reverting to the version before your addition (a list of all species with links), and then you can start the articles on the different species and put the specific info there rather than on the genus page. Thank you, SCHZMO ✍ 15:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment, but that's an awful lot of articles... Regards, Ptelea 14:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guernsey Elm

Hi Ptelea - this one needs a bit of copyediting/checking; if it is a subspecies, the subspecific name needs lower-casing and putting in italics. However, I'm far from convinced it is; Bean (Trees & Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles) treats it as a cultivar, and it is certainly always propagated as one, by cuttings, not by seed. Do you have any evidence that it is more than just one clone? (that's what is needed to make a botanical taxon of it) - thanks, MPF 00:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear MPF - Thanks for your comment. I changed its status to put in line in line with Stace's "New Flora...", and Colin Howes's paper, but concede I have no direct evidence to offer. RBG Edinburgh won't commit themselves, leaving 'var. Sarn'. as "unchecked name". Have now corrected my typo and italicized the subsp. name. Taxonomy of British elms a nightmare, but it is evident Stokes's 'lumping' now very much out of fashion, and have accordingly also restored English Elm and canescens to the status of species in line with Flora Europaea.Ptelea 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm

Hi Ptelea Thanks for your note. I agree that the list of species, cultivars and hybrids, although useful and informative, is starting to get a bit unwieldy in terms of its length in proportion to the the article. I wonder if a separate linked article with a "complete" listing might be in order for those who come to the page looking for names names like Exoniensis, Lutescens, Vegeta, hollandica, Camperdownii etc and not knowing their respective species associations. Anyway, feel free to prune and trim as you feel is necessary and thanks for your great contributions on elms --Melburnian 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm sorting

Hi Ptelea - just to let you know, I've got (as far as I'm aware) all of the elm species categorised into Category:Ulmaceae, and all of the cultivars into Category:Elm cultivars. Also cleared all the duplicates (e.g. [Columella (plant)] duplicated [Columella (elm cultivar)], it is now just a redirect). If I've missed any, let me know. - MPF 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a nice trip - MPF 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm cultivar article renaming

Hi Ptelea, I've noticed that you have created duplicate elm cultivar articles by cutting and pasting the words from the old article to the new article, which I presume that you are doing to 'move' the articles to new names.

Moves are best (and most easily) carried out from the move tab at the top of an article page to preserve the pages history and associated talk pages. This is particularly important in articles such as Camperdown Elm which have a page history dating back to 2003 with over 30 edits by a variety of editors.

I agree with your idea of renaming the elm cultivar articles which are currently listed by common name to standardise the formats, I think the naming style that you have set i.e. Cultivarname (elm cultivar) is a good one to stick with. I will move the original articles to their cultivar names using that naming style and then delete the duplicate pages if you have no objections--Melburnian 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm still on a learning curve as well, a Merry Christmas to you too --Melburnian 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

Hi Ptelea

That's a bit of a tricky because, like you, I can't move it as only an admin can move an article to a page name with a multi-edit page history (which that title has) and also the article title has been "challenged".

The procedure therefore is to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow:

3. Steps for requesting a (possibly) controversial page move

which includes giving a (well-stated) reason for the move. If you need assistance, let me know.

It would be a good idea for you to have a look at these two links beforehand:

--Melburnian 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Just a heads-up that I'm removing the external links to www.lakecountynursery.com that you placed in several articles to comply with external link and spam guidelines. Thanks, and happy editing. RJASE1 Talk 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uurg(?)

I'm think Rauwolfia has some problems. Um.... I think the "precautions" section might be a joke. You seem to know way, way more about plants than me, so I thought I would randomly ask you if you had a spare second to look at it. Thanks :D -Haikon 01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elm cultivar article naming

Greetings! I recently ran across several of your articles and brought a discussion about a naming convention for the use of TM in article titles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Use of ™ in article titles?. I thought you'd like to participate since you are the principle contributor on those articles. For other information on flora naming conventions, see WP:NC (flora). Cheers! --Rkitko (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Following on from this:
I do beg your pardon for what may seem an offensive question, but I don't know your background, and confusion between cultivars, PBR varieties and mere trademarked plant names is very common. Are you able to confirm that you understand the distinction, and the plants in Category:Elm cultivars really are cultivars in the strict sense of the word? — i.e. they have a registered name under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants? If so, then these articles should be located at their cultivar names, for example Ulmus 'Zettler', and the trademark under which they are sold should get a mention in the article text. Hesperian 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A cultivar "in the strict sense of the word", dear sir or madam, is a plant produced by human selection and vegetatively propagated to perpetuate its characteristics. Niceties such as registration with the ICNCP are not germane to the fundamental meaning of the word. Cultivars of elm have been recognized for almost three centuries, long before the inception of ICNCP I suspect, and that should not be allowed to devalue the horticultural distinction. As for my inclusion of tradenames on the index page, this was done primarily for the convenience of the reader / researcher. It is a fact of life that most plants become generally known by their tradenames, not cv. name, and I therefore think it important to retain the style adopted. Ptelea 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid time has passed you by on this point my friend. "Cultivar" may have once meant what you say it means, but a cultivar is now "a cultivated plant that has received a name under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants". You are of course free to continue to use the term in its broader sense in your day-to-day conversation, but Wikipedia has long since accepted and adopted the formal definition of the term.
Should I understand from your response that the category contains a mix of registered cultivars and unregistered breed?
Hesperian 10:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It would seem I'm not alone here. I have four references, all published this century, that make no mention of the ICNCP in their definitions either. My classification is based simply on that given in the references I have to hand, notably the accession lists of major arboreta such as the Arnold (available via the multi-site search engine [1]). I am not in possession of the ICNCP listings, but if such an esteemed establishment as the Arnold Arb. is prepared to classify an elm, eg Bea Schwarz, as a cultivar, then that's good enough for me. Adopt the Wiki definition without question if you will, but I think this will only create unnecessary complexity and confusion, and there's surely enough of that in the sphere of elm taxonomy already. As for trademarks, I note Wiki gudelines permit their usage to discriminate between names used in the pharmaceutical industry, and I would contend that horticulture is analogous here. ::::Ptelea 11:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not "the Wiki definition". It is the definition used all over the place. Try googling for a definition of "cultivar". You'll find your loose definition in online dictionaries and Burke's Backyard-quality web-pages, but every respectable botanical institution and journal will define a cultivar in terms of the ICNCP.
I'm quite prepared to believe that Bea Scharz is a cultivar, and I'm happy to accept the fact that Arnold refers to it as such as confirmation. I'm quite prepared to believe that they are all cultivars; I just want confirmation before we decide what their names should be. ICNCP doesn't make a list; it registers International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRAs), which themselves keep lists. The ICRA for Ulmus is the American Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta (AABGA). They would be responsible for maintaining a list of registered Ulmus cultivars, but I can't find such a list on their website. Perhaps an email is in order; I will email the registrar.
I have no objection to the use of trademarks in articles or as redirects; in fact I should say this is required information. I have no objection to the use of trademarks in titles where disambiguation is necessary. I do object to entitling a plant article by its trademark when there is a perfectly serviceable cultivar name available.
Hesperian 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This list appears to be a list of all cultivars registered by the AABGA. There are no Ulmus cultivars listed. My take on this is there are no Ulmus cultivars. I have sent an email to the AABGA cultivar registrar, Dr Mark Tebbitt, to confirm. Hesperian 12:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
One last thing: I just want to say that you've done some great work here, and it is very much appreciated. I hope you don't think I'm crapping all over your efforts by pushing the cultivar issue. All I'm trying to do is bring the article titles into line with Wikipedia convention and best practice. Hesperian 12:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. Hesperian 12:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
<-
Time for me to eat humble pie. Tebbitt responded as follows:
"Yes they are cultivars. The international registration of new cultivars is voluntary so the vast majority are never registered."
Clearly he takes the view that a cultivar is a cultivar even if it is not registered... and who am I to argue the definition of "cultivar" with the official cultivar registrar of the genus? Apologies for my error.
Given that these are cultivars, both the category name and the current titles are legitimate. However, Wikipedia articles on cultivars usually follow the Ulmus 'Bea Schwarz' convention, and I do think it is best to follow it in this case. But the issue is no longer pressing, so rather than move them now, I will open a discussion at WT:PLANTS on formalising our conventions. Feel free to put your point of view.
Hesperian 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WP:PLANTS, proposing we adopt the Ulmus 'Bea Schwarz' naming convention. With respect to elms, this approach is consistent with Green (1964); e.g. on page 41:

"e.g. Ulmus 'Acutifolia' (or elm 'Acutifolia'), to take the first name in the list below. In this way, therefore, the few examples of conflicting identities cited in the text that follows may be referred to as Ulmus 'Argenteomarginata', U. 'Christine Buisman', U. 'Klemmer' and U. 'Lombartsii', or, where the species is uncertain because of juvenile or other atypical foliage, as Ulmus 'Myrtifolia' and U. 'Nana'."

Hesperian 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. F. Hance

I believe this person is actually Henry Fletcher Hance (ipni, fr). I couldn't find any trace of one whose first name started with "J", anyway.Circeus 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elms

Hi! I have noticed that you often abbreviate Ulmus to U. in titles. Could you please write it in full? Genus shouldn't be abbreviated if it is not mentioned before in that very article. Otherwise it is not clear whether it deals with Ulmus or Urtica or Uvularia or anything else. Also please don't use bare variety names as titles. There are many other plants of variety coreana that have nothing to do with elms. Please follow WP:NC(flora) and Binomial nomenclature. Colchicum 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Gascoigne Robinson

I like your additions to this article, especially the picture, Thankyou. Just out of curiosity, do you know where on the picket boat the torpedo would have been attached?--Jackyd101 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it was a very interesting tale. Did you actually speak to Bill Head or was that from a book? If the latter, I'd be interested to read it myself.--Jackyd101 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, couldn't find the book on amazon but I'll keep an eye out for it. Do you know Bill Head? I had some dealings with the Submarine Museum during my last job, but never actually spoke to him in person.--Jackyd101 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou very much. All the best.--Jackyd101 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of Port Fairy

I haven't changed your entry on the naming of Port Fairy but read what this page says about the naming. Port Fairy Historical Society Farsouth 13:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i misread what you did, oops. still the link you provided doesn't seem to mention what you stated? Farsouth 13:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I tried looking for more info online but had no luck. :) Farsouth 09:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Elm Reserach for 20 years

Like you I have been studying elms for aeons and I have been very much involved. My work has assisted the city of Brighton and Hove form their National Collection. I also helped found the Tree Register and currently maintain the British Isles records for Ulmus with them and other major established groups. I look forward to seeing more sections of Ulmus x hollandica types (you are missing 'Klemmer'!!!). There are many elms to be entered, but I am useless at starting a page. Brighton has many rare specimen trees including Ulmus villosa, Ulmus wallchiana and Ulmus pumila. Unique are the likes of Ulmus x hollandica 'Rugosa-Pendula' and Ulmus x hollandica 'Eleganteo-Variegata'. Ulmusenthu

[edit] UPMTF (Bosque™)

Greetings! Regarding the name of this page, I was going to move it to a more appropriate name (use of ™ is discouraged), but I didn't know what the proper cultivar name was. Convention established by WP:PLANTS is that the title of these articles should be: Genus 'Cultivar Name'. So should this page be moved to Ulmus 'UPMTF Bosque' or Ulmus 'Bosque'? All of your cultivar pages should be renamed to this convention. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got me again. I'll duly add the Ulmus to the cultivar pages, but regret I find the ruling on TM difficult to understand. Two names are often awarded to a cultivar, one being its registered / patented tradename. Irritating though this habit may be, I feel it important we identify which is which by retaining the suffix. So, yes, Ulmus UPMTF BosqueTM. Regards, Ptelea 14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The tradename should be a redirect. WP:NC (flora) prefers scientific names and by consensus, editors have preferred the form I provided before: Genus 'Cultivar Name'. Please see WP:MOSTM for information on the trademark style guide. Specifically: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs). That refers specifically to in text usage of the symbols, but it can also be extended to article titles, which are supposed to be easy to link to (use of ™ makes it difficult to link to) and what the majority of users will recongize. Maintaining both names in the title makes it difficult to recognize and goes against consensus on cultivar article titles. You can definitely mention in the article that a certain cultivar is a registered trademark of XYZ and give the trademark name, but it shouldn't be used in the article title.
I'm not at all familiar with elm cultivars, so help me out here. What is the UPMTF in the article title? I assume Bosque is the registered name and that's what it's been published as? If that's correct, the article should be titled at Ulmus 'Bosque'. I'm going to begin another conversation with the folks at WT:PLANTS shortly to discuss including all of the consensus opinions regarding cultivars, subgenera, sections, vars, hybrids, etc. in our naming convention for flora. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Regret I've no idea what the UPMTF stands for, most unusual to see what I presume are initials adopted as a cultivar name. If I find the time, I'll contact the Angel Creek Nurseries and ask them. I only chanced on it after reading the Colorado State University's page on the national elm trials it is coordinating, and looking up the nursery to see what else they had raised. Regards. Ptelea 15:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Curious indeed! I noticed a few others that had similar cultivar names. Sorry I was confused earlier in my above message. So Bosque is the trade name and the unknown acronym UPMTF is the cultivar name. I suppose then the correct title should then be Ulmus 'UPMTF', right? Best, --Rkitko (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
After coming across this I'm guessing that UPMTF stands for Ulmus parvifolia Moon's Tree Farm. --Melburnian 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings again! I'm a bit confused about all the pages you moved recently. Most of the cultivar pages look correct, but the species page titles are incorrect. Read through WP:NC (flora) - if the species is economically or culturally significant enough (such as Maple), then it should remain at its common name. If not, it should be moved to the scientific name. But not: "Ulmus glabra - Wych Elm". We don't want both in the title since we're not just titling a page here, we're placing it for ease of searching and linking. I don't have the admin powers necessary to move it over the redirects with more than one edit, so at the moment this is the way they remain until we can get an administrator to move them all. I also meant to tell you to come visit Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) where we're discussing the additions to the naming convention and we're specifically discussing cultivars and tradenames. So come on over and discuss with us! Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your note. My changes were specifically "for ease of searching and linking", mindful that common names for a species tend to vary, particularly when they cross the Atlantic, viz. Wych Elm / Scots Elm, European White Elm / Russian Elm. Moreover, a number of the more obscure Chinese species have now been accorded common names by the Morton Arboretum in Illinois, but these have yet to be widely adopted. By adding the scientific name, I'd hoped to avoid that, but if again it conflicts with WP protocol, then I'll have to undo it. As a general point, I think it looks untidy and inconsistent to waver from common to scientific, and without parallel in other references. Regards, Ptelea 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's actually why we created the flora naming convention. Early on, I was involved in a dispute over Cytisus scoparius, which is called Scotch broom in the US but apparently rarely called that in the UK (often called only "Broom" there). From later disputes just like that, the community decided to adopt a naming convention that allows for common names when they're really important like maple, coffee, potato which also have a single dominant common name. All others should be moved to their scientific name alone, not a combination of scientific and common name in the title. It may seem inconsistent and you have a good point about it being unparalleled with respect to other references, but Wikipedia itself is unparalleled. Most other references are written for a single English-speaking audience, not an international one. Wikipedia also has a single general naming convention (WP:NC) that states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." WP:NC (flora) goes against that somewhat broad convention for the sake of reducing arguments about who has the majority of English speakers--British, Commonwealth, American, etc. In your specific situation, what I would suggest is creating a Category:Elm species by common name and add the category to the common name redirects. Best, --Rkitko (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Danada Charm.jpg

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Sfan00 IMG 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HMS Swale K217.jpg

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Sfan00 IMG 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulmus

Please don't move articles to strange titles like Ulmus rubra - Slippery Elm.[2] This, of course, had to be moved to its proper page, the scientific name of the plant. There are some guidelines at WP:Plants for how to name article titles, and you can post on the talk page if you have questions there. Have you made any other moves of this nature, with both the common name and scientific name as the page title? Nice job on all the Elm cultivar pages. If you do this many page moves in the future, ask if you can get a bot to do it for you. Generally don't abbreviate words like "Herb." for Herbarium in articles, although I didn't check, just saw this in one article--they're well written, informative, interesting. Do you have a list of Elm cultivars? Nice job. KP Botany 17:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I prodded the redirect from Ulmus rubra - Slippery Elm, as there is no need to have this as a redirect page. KP Botany 18:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, wiki plants agreed we'd use scientific names for all but a few major agricultural crops (apple), but we have not changed all of the articles to scientific names, and it's very confusing for other editors to figure out what, if any protocol, there is. Considering the apparent lack of convention among other plant editors, I really shouldn't have said "strange" about your title choice, when a simple clue from other editors working on plants is not really forthcoming. And, yes, although I found the one abbreviation in an article, I didn't look at other articles to see if that was occurring, because I assumed it was not a problem due to the one article I looked at being generally well written in Standard English. I did see that you have a list on Wikipedia of Elm cultivars, which was what I was asking about. Again, very nice. KP Botany 16:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Ulmus 'Plantyn' foliage.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ulmus 'Plantyn' foliage.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Andyreply 08:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi there, generally images require both a source and a license, the easiest way to provide the source is to use the information template however as you have taken the photo yourself and said so in the summary this should be sufficient enough (please see Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Mini_HowTo for more info on licensing and sourcing images) Andyreply 09:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ulmus pumila 'Hansen' foliage.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ulmus pumila 'Hansen' foliage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Andyreply 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Gascoigne Robinson

Hi there, the above article is under review and one of the things which has been called into question is the provenance of the image Image:HMS Triumph picket boat.jpg. Can you provide any more information about this image and if it is not clearly in the public domain can you give a fiar use rationale? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have changed the tag to a better one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:L'Orme Pitteurs,1851.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Ptelea!
We thank you for uploading Image:L'Orme Pitteurs,1851.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)