User talk:Ingolfson

• For the 2007 archives of this talk page, see User talk:Ingolfson/Archive 2007.
• For the 2008 archives of this talk page, see User talk:Ingolfson/Archive 2008.

Why the category move?

Please respond at Category talk:Narrow gauge railways. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pronunciation of China and others

Dear Ingolfson,

first of all thank you for your numerous contributions to the commons. Nevertheless I have to give you some comment to some of them:

You just recently changed Pronunciation of China from Category:China to Category:Languages of China, just the same with Papua New Guinea, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and maybe some others. To take the first example: This category just now containes one file in German (de), one in Hungarian (hu), one in Swedish (sv), and two in Jèrriais (jer and jer), none of those languages are a language of China. Only two of the files in this category are in Chinese (zh and zh). Similar is to be said to the others in Category:Pronunciation of countries.

Will you please keep in mind in future, that each [[Category:Pronunciation of Country]] should contain pronunciations of Country in any language of the world, if available, independantly wether those file are in one of the languages of the named country or not. So [[Category:Languages of Country]] obviously is incorrect, and [[Category:Country]] to be taken instead. Greetings, --ludger1961 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ludger - thanks for pointing out my mistake, but also allow me to partially disagree, and clarify why I did what I did. One of Commons overriding principles is going from generic to specialist subjects in the categorisation. A category that contains pronounciations is a very, very specific category. To keep this as a topcat in the "country" level - where only about a dozen+plus (15 at the moment) categories should normally exist (see Commons:Category scheme countries and subdivisions), makes little sense to me. Pronounciation is something to do with rhetorics, language, culture ... choose whatever applies best in your opinion. I have no issue if you disagree with me placing it in the "languages of" categories - however, I strongly believe that it should NOT be directly in the country topcat. Otherwise we would have a hard time keeping other very specialist subjects like (randomly chosen) "ethics of..." out of the top level category. So we may just have a disagrement on this here, and I am happy for you to propose what culture of other subcat this could be in. Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ingolfson, what do you think about [[Category:Audio and pronunciation files of Country]]? Let us, please, explicitly name both audio and pronunciation in the category's name.

My arguments: I agree with you that the new category should contain the pronunciation files about the named country. Most (but not all) files in a pronunciation category are audio files. So in my eyes it is obvious that pronunciation files can be collected together with different audio files in one category. Files like File:Nl-België-article.ogg (now directly in Category:Belgium) and File:Nl-Filipijnen-article.ogg (now directly in Category:Philippines) can be categorised to Category:Audio and pronunciation files of Belgium and Category:Audio and pronunciation files of the Philippines respectively. Just now the Category:Netherlands directly contains more than a dozen of audio files waiting for being moved into the right subcategory during the diffusion of this category.

[[Category:Culture of Country]] seems inappropiate to me. What has Китай (ukrainian for China) and Chine (french for China) directly to do with the culture of China? What has Německo (Czech for Germany), Saksa (finnish for Germany), and Alemania (spanish for Germany) directly to do with the culture of Germany? My point of view: Nothing! It has more to do with the culture of the countries, where the named languages are spoken. To be continued endlously with the names in different languages for the different countries of the world. In opposite to this the name I propose for the new category directly names what it is for and in addition to this is open to contain numerous files which just now are directly in the different countries' main categories.

Additionally I propose a category Category:Pronunciation of chinese (File:En-us-Chinese.ogg, File:De-Chinesisch.ogg, and others would belong here) as a subcategory to this new category. This would also be a subcategory to [[Category:Pronunciation of languages]] and to [[Category:Pronunciation of country-related adjectives]] (subcategories to Category:Pronunciation by topic), for chinese (just like estonian, german, swedish, and others) can refer to the chinese language and to anything relating to China, which is represented differently in a number of languages.

Happily waiting for your response, but don't bother when I cannot answer again before next week. Kind regards --ludger1961 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludger - thanks for the ideas. I have one issue with your proposed category - I still think it is relatively specialised, and thus not really appropriate as a top cat below "country". How about: Category:Audio and video files of XXX, with Category:Audio files of XXX and then Category:Pronounciation of XXX as subcats? Ingolfson (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I am still searching for something that caputures "audio and video files" together (as in "non-static media" (i.e. not photos)). "Multimedia" sounds right, but isn't, because while a video file with sound is multimedia, a silent video or a sound files isn't. Frustrating. Ingolfson (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates in IMO

Dear Sir, Please be informed that also Hebster is working on a template, different from yours. I am not familiar with templates at all, the result of yours in the file itself looks good. So can you contact him to integrate the templates? And tell me how to use it. Best regards, --Stunteltje (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Railway station categories

Please note that train stations is considered incorrect usage in Britain, and therefore railway stations should be used instead. Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/12/Categories of train stations where this ewas discussed, after which the categories were sorted to their current location. – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why did you do a move for which there is no consensus. All en.wp articles on british stations are ...railway station, and so are all other british station categories. I am reverting your change. Please check before doing such a move in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on feet people, but Commons can be pretty dead at times, with no responses for months - I can't wait and discuss everything, especially as a rename request isn't the same as a move (I can't move stuff, I am not an admin / bot). So please don't take offence just because I am being bold in trying to sort out category structures. I accept your wish to retain these categories with their names, even if I disagree on consistency reasons. Ingolfson (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to sound accusing, I know commons can be dead, and in the past I have also stepped on a few toes to do what I think should be done, so i know how you feel. I figured you were responding to the move request rather than doing it off your own bat. I agree that in general it makes sense for categories to be universal, but to me it makes more sense to make sure categories match en.wp article names, and that they are done in the way that people adding photos find easy - ie in the local dialect. Thanks for understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So far, the de facto standard worldwide clearly is train stations, while in the UK, it is railway station. I am trying to respect that (by filtering move requests), but I noticed that indeed, the exception is sometimes forgotten. That being said, a counter reaction move like this and this triggers other counter reactions and makes some people nervous and gets the ball (train) rolling and don't solve the problem neither. --Foroa (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood - and as I said, if local usage is that way, I have no problem. In regards to what you linked to Foroa - does this mean that "disused train stations" is now be moved back to "disused railway stations"? As I said, I disagree on consistency reasons - contrary to what Mattbuck says, only a small part of all categories uses "train stations" (except, of course, in the UK subcats). Ingolfson (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the move has been undone, and I think that I corrected all the move requests. "De facto" standard: train stations, exception: UK railway station. --Foroa (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - sorry if I came across a bit ratty this morning. (I broke my own rule - never edit when you've in a bad mood!) Anyway, I'm glad this is sorted, and I've withdrawn my opposition to the Eritrean station renaming. It's a good idea to add the comments to the UK sub-categories. I can do this simply using AWB, but I'll have to leave it for a couple of days as I'm using AWB on en-wiki to update several hundred templates at present! – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mining rail transport

I hate to find myself second-guessing you again, because you generally do great work but...

Mining rail transport? They are en route to a mining district, but they are not in a mine. My guess is you skimmed the description and saw "mine" and "rail". - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to find myself second-guessing you again, - I'd rather be second-guessed like that than sneakily reversed ;-) Well, I did think a little bit more about it, and while they are in a rail vehicle (running on the rails, maybe that category should be added), you are right in that the sense of the cat probably isn't given. Ingolfson (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Dordoy Bazaar

Dordoy Bazaar is no Container terminal (as in, a place to which containers continually arrive e.g. by truck to be shipped away e.g. by rail or boat, and vice versa). The containers at Dordoy aren't moving much more than mobile homes would be moving to or from a typical American mobile home park. They are just sitting there, being used as shops and warehouses (the bottom and top container, respectively, in the 2-stacked-container format). So I'd classify the place "container architecture" rather than "container terminals". Vmenkov (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, you placed my talk page into the container terminals category by forgetting the extra ":" before the link (I have now edited it). "Container architecture"? I like the idea. I will see about fixing something up along that line... Ingolfson (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Comment requested"

Replied (sort of) on my talk page. I can't tell what you want my opinion on. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Move requests

Hi, it might be more efficient for all of us if obvious renaming requests (harmonisations, obvious moves such as "destruction" to "destruction (band)", singular/plural, capitalisation errors) are inserted straight into User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. This will make the "Move request" category more manageble too. Example use. --Foroa (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite know how this works, but I'll have a look at it next time. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

World War I trench railways

Hi, I see you've set up a category structure for the Bundesarchiv trench railways photos.. do you think we maybe need to use explicit WWI-related category names for these, to avoid later confusion ? regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh, not quite sure what you mean? Could you give an example here of what you are thinking of? I thought that categorising as trench railway and as WWII rail transort would work, with subcategories for specific military railways when they did exist and the image can be traced back to a specific one? Ingolfson (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was : perhaps we should name the category "World War I trench railway" to make it clear that it covers the WWI war period. There may be trench railways in other conflicts. Hence I propose a category structure : World War I military transport, World War I military rail transport, World War I trench rail transport. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh, generally agree, though some other people have been touchy about expanding such structures when not enough files are in them (would you be willing to spend some time to populate those cats?). Also, there is a current discussion about a rail transport category scheme that should be concluded first, because of heated dispute over terms like "railways" vs. "rail lines/railway lines" and so on. See the link from directly below this topic on this talk page. Ingolfson (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railways

Category discussion notification

Category:Railways 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!

The discussion involves its subcategories too. --ŠJů (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion

Thank you for consulting me, but the choice of using the grammar "(Palermo)" instead of ", Palermo", does not come from a decision of mine, but comes from the fact that for some reason, unknown to me, the Italian Wikipedia opted since before my joining the project for the grammar "Building (Palermo)" instead of "Building, Palermo". Now I have been trying to amalgamate in Commons the criteria along the whole of Italy (which was in a total and complete mess: when I put my hands in the Category:Cathedrals in Italy, there were no less than 10 different grammars to categorize cathedral churches, which I shrinked to two, apart a few exceptions in cases in which I did not want to dispute with contributors who were very enamoured of their very original and very unique creations in matter of categorisation grammars....) for years, and I am not surely going all the way back. In my opinion it is better to have some fixed criteria for everybody than having criteria that vary from town to town, and moment to moment. Since this one grammar was, thanks to god, a general criterion that all Italian Wikipedians were using, I sticked to it. This made, and makes, things much, much, much easier, and prevents me from having to fix all the categories that other Italian wikipedians are creating.

To me the matter is totally indifferent, but since this worked until now, I'd rather follow the rule: "If it works, don't fix it".

Thank you for your kind attention --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S: Of course I don't espect you to trust me just on my word, so please have a check on the Italian Wikipedia, please.

Mmmmh, I have no problem trusting you there - and neither do I want to tell the Italian Wikipedians how to name their articles/categories. That is their choice. But COMMONS is ONE project, not one of different languages and standards - so eventually, it should be fixed here - and that can be done even if the Italian Wikipedia keeps their different standard(s). However, since I have enough on my plate at the moment, I am not much into arguing for changes here on Commons on this specific matter if you feel it would be contentious. Eventually, in the long run, standardisation will win, I am quite certain. Ingolfson (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this. I executed already thousands of move requests in Italy and the situation is enormously improved. When you look at the edit count of Giovanni, you will understand why he needs a category naming standard.

Although, myself I don't always like the "Italian" standard, the standard is not precise enough to impose one way or another. I don't think that the changes suggested by Ingolfson are defined in the standard, rather a coming (almost) "de facto" standard. And an Italian (sub)standard is better than a Italian spagetti in this case. --Foroa (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The categorization of diagrams, charts, graphs and maps under illustrations

Hi, for now I have undone you recent changes, were the Category:Agricultural diagrams, - charts, - graphs and - maps were collected under Category:Agricultural illustrations.

I have explained myself at Category talk:Agricultural diagrams. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. Ingolfson (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Title cases

Hi Ingolfson, I am under the impression that there is in English quite some mixup between title cases and proper names, as you can read in en:Title-case#Places_and_geographic_terms. Especially generic terms are quite mixed up. Moreover, those habits (as the rules are not very clear and solid), are leaning to the culture of the US and Germany, but not so much in other countries. In the US and Germany, one will find often Xxx Castle, while in other countries you will find Xxx castle, where castle is quite rightly to me, a generic term. All this to explain I don't waste my time executing moves that change case in one direction or in the other (such as salon d'agriculture), until there is somewhere a clear and unambiguous rule. I often check the use of the title case in the articles and very often they are incoherent with the title, meaning that the title case is often confused with the proper name. --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unification of category names - train stations in the Czech Republic

The discussion about an unification of category names is opened at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Categories of train stations in the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Categorisation comment

I was only getting the Categories started until I could see what others would fit. Thanks for fixing the NZ category. Just was busy today (Last time I do a 30km+ with hill after hill). Bidgee (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Harbours

Dear Ingolfson, thank you for the correction. In Italian there is no separation between the two words, so that I can't even per4ceive the difference, even after I am explained. All ports/arbiours are shelters, and all of them are used to embark desembark goods... more or less. Furthermore the thing is not clear at all, since at en:Harbor the first illustration bears "Port Jackson"... However, since my task is merely having a uniform grammar through the whole category, in place of 1000 different ways to name the same thing, I'd appreciate if you could help by sorting ports from harbour here: Category:Ports and harbours in Italy, since I cannot still see the difference between the two words. :-)
As for the grammar, yes, I explained earlier I'm not going to change it again (that would be the third time, and it's too much for my tastes). I think it will suffice that throught Italian entries there is only one method rather than 100. Some day the work to change them all can be given to a bot, when and if it is deemed necessary. Now the most urgent thing is having a coherent method throught. Thank you for your help. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello G. dallorto - I agree that the definition is not easy to keep apart in some cases, especially as images may have been mixed up and the category not correctly set up to start with. As for explaining the difference, here are two examples of cases where the difference is clear:

The large open bay is in the middle is en:Wellington Harbour.

the wharves and quays of the Port of en:Wellington are located in en:Wellington Harbour, but are not a harbour itself (zoom out to compare).

The long open bay is in the middle is the en:Waitemata Harbour.

the wharves and quays are those of en:Ports of Auckland, which are located in en:Waitemata Harbour, but are not a harbour itself (zoom out to compare).

Many people confuse the two, and the definition for any specific harbour/port is not always as clear as in my examples even to people who know it. I am just saying that where you do know (from maps, or from personal knowledge) you should make the difference if possible. As a basic rule on Commons, a harbour is usually natural (a bay) while a port is manmade (quays, wharves, breakwaters...) Ingolfson (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Järnvägar

Hej! Category:Järnvägar kanske borde tömmas och avvecklas? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, I had assumed you were Swedish, and it would need someone with knowledge of Swedish rail terminology and of the commons railroad category scheme to recategorize these images. "Järnväger" just means railroads, so this is a duplicate category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:Jiuquan_Satellite_Launch_Center_tower.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jiuquan_Satellite_Launch_Center_tower.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

shizhao (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Badges of rank

Hallo, I would appreciate your military expertise (and helping hand) in Category talk:Badges of rank. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my experience with the military is simply what one learns as a reader of too many novels with military themes. And while I have a pedantic streak ;-), learning about military rank systems was always a bit too dry for me. So all I can offer is my comment on the rename proposal page. Ingolfson (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:IMO 9147368

Category:IMO 9147368 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 category, 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!

--Stunteltje (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that I am not authorised to remove the deletion tag, otherwise I had already done so. Still not experienced enough to know whether or not you are the only person to remove the tag. Regret inconvenience caused. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes stumble over the same questions of whether conventions are to be followed in a certain way. As "speedy" is actually a rather casual process (using speedy implies that it is clearly apparent why it should be deleted), anything like the fact that there are suddenly images again which are appropriate for a previously empty category, would logically make the "speedy" irrelevant, and should allow removal. My two cents - Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cycling infrastructure categorization

Hi Ingolfson, you have shown interest in this topic earlier: I have proposed a category tree scheme here: Category talk:Cycling infrastructure. I would like your comments. The goal is to minimise the chaos within this category tree. Nillerdk (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow - not hedging, but it is almost midnight here... Ingolfson (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Driving railway coaches

Category discussion notification

Category:Driving railway coaches 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!

And please have a look at Category:Railcars (self-propelled) and User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Foroa (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, for once, I have no opinion, since I am not an expert on either terminology. Ingolfson (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany

Category discussion notification

Category:Cycling infrastructure in Germany 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Bicycle road signs

Category discussion notification

Category:Bicycle road signs 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!

--ŠJů (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:GZ Da Fu Shan Garden 大夫山森林公園 Rules of Bike Leasing.jpg

What's the problem with this picture? It was originally uploaded by the photographer, with the appropriate license, as the history of the image and other contribution of the user indicates. Why should he come back now and email OTRS?

As to the potential "derivative work" issue, freedom of panorama applies in China quite broadly; the image is tagged with a tag (FoP-China) explaining the situation. Vmenkov (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but I have no idea about any issues with this image, all I did was change the category. Ingolfson (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I've misread the edit history! Vmenkov (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves

A couple of comments.

• I don't want to interfere with the work of G.dallarto. Although I do not always agree with his naming style, at least he has a coherent approach which is futureproof (not trying to remove disambiguation terms all the time). I moved thousands of categories for him, and I don't want to redo that for a vague de-facto standard (which I support, but it is probably too early to really push it). At least, naming in Italy is pretty coherent, better than in most other countries.
• SieBot does not move audio or video files, so if there are too many such files, I set a redirect on it so the move happens later by other bots.
• Some of the pronounciation files have been moved to another destination (see redirects) as the plural form seems not correct/coherent in many cases. Potatos does not seem right neither. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise those were G.dallarto's moves. Didn't know about the Siebot issue either. And missed the fact that you had changed the category names for the plural cases. Thanks, I'm learning new stuff all the time. Ingolfson (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Immune systems

I consider this to be vandalism. If you do something like that again I'm gonna report you for vandalism. Plus if you start something finish it. What about Category:Veterinary Pharmacology? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)