User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2009/8

Angle Lake is not in Seattle

Angle Lake is not in Seattle. It's in SeaTac, Washington. I'll do the cleanup, just letting you know. - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know and for the cleanup. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Image of yours used without attribution

Came across this and recognized the image as being from Commons. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I sent them a cease and desist E-mail. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:E haplogroup.gif

I have redone and uploaded the above image. Let me know if is okay. Muntuwandi (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the description said how the illustration was adapted. It appears that you have traced the original or redrawn it. If so, it may not violate the copyright of the original since it is not an exact copy. I'm only one opinion and I'm not an expert in this area (I would probably not comment on COM:DR). You may wish to ask Abigor (talk · contribs) and/or Polarlys (talk · contribs). They deleted the two versions of File:Haplogroup E.png that you uploaded. You may wish to expand the description of the image. For graphics of this sort, my understanding is that .png is preferred over .gif. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a couple of days, but Abigor has deleted the image. I can provide a description. Just for the record, I put in several hours working on the image. Muntuwandi (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please use COM:UNDEL, if you would like the broader Commons community to review the deletion. Thank you, 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

testing using wikimedia

Thanks Walt, I think I now know how to use this, I will also try the email section.-Mac

Splendid! Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a significant learning threshold that is a barrier to participation. You can sign automatically by ending your message with ~~~~ (four tildes). Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Monotropa hypopitys and hypopithys

Hi. It seems we have two categories about the same plant. The question is, which spelling should we use?

Category discussion notification

Category:Monotropa hypopithys 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!

--JerryFriedman (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/08/Category:Monotropa hypopitys. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Userboxes

Hi, thank you for stopping by to inform me of COM:BABEL as a good faith suggestion. However, I'm a little reluctant to place the template on my talk page because I'm not sure of measuring my language ability. If your message was related to the whole fiasco brought to the public spaces by Kwj2777, well I would say that most of Korean editors whom I encounter on Commons are all familiar faces on Korean Wikipedia and they know me. So I really don't think the need. I consider any discussion with admins should be accessible for everyone except Email discussions, so I think using English is to give a fair opportunity to all people since English is a lingua franca in Wiki projects.--Caspian blue 13:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry much about measuring language ability accurately; a rough idea is helpful. Babel boxes suggest that a user has an awareness of the multilingual nature of the project and a desire to communicate. I don't have an opinion on the Kwj2777 matter (and don't have time to look into it), but I often read COM:MELLOW when things are not going well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Quercus chrysolepis

Hi. I turn your request to it:Progetto:Forme di vita. As soon as possible an expert will help you. Cheers--Trixt (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is kind of you. Thank you for that link. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes to John Hill's Talk page

Hi! Thanks very much for the changes you have just done on my page - I am very happy with them, they make it easier for me to use now too.

On another subject, I am having a bit of trouble dealing with all the beautiful and detailed botanical illustrations of local orchids which my friend Lewis Roberts has allowed me to upload recently to Wikimedia Commons. I am not a botanist and have been having all sorts of difficulties as the small ground orchids Lewis mostly illustrates have been the subject of many taxonomical changes in recent times. Many have not only had species name changes but have been moved into new genera (and sometimes back again). I have been using as my guide the large and well-respected 2006 book by David L. Jones (see below) as my guide. Jones is generally accepted as Australia's leading taxonomist dealing with orchids. So, I have been uploading some of Lewis' images to the Wikipedia and trying to write short accounts based largely on Jones' book and whatever I can find that is pertinent on the internet.

However, some of Jones' more recent orchid names (including new names of genera) have not yet made it into the Royal Gardens of Kew's World Checklist of Names, and so this is leading to confusions and reversals of some of the work I have been doing. I really need some good advice on these rather technical taxonomic questions so I know what headings to put on images and articles.

User Orchi yesterday changed some of the names I had inserted back to the older ones on the Kew Gardens list. I wrote him a long letter asking for help - only to realise after I finished it that he has only a basic command of English. So, I wonder if I could ask you to kindly have a look at it (I will paste it in below) and either reply directly if you wish and feel confident to do so, or forward it on to some Administrator likely to have the background knowledge to give me some clear directions on what I should be doing? I would be very grateful for any suggestions or help as I am really out of my depth here. Many thanks, John E. Hill (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original letter I sent to User Orchi:

Hi! Please be patient with me as I am not a botanist, nor am I sure of Wikipedia policy on botanical names. I notice this morning that you have reversed some names I entered recently for botanical illustrations by Lewis Roberts from Acianthella amplexicaulis to Acianthus amplexicaulis, and Cirrhopetalum gracillimum to Bulbophyllum gracillimum.

Now, I know the names you have chosen are the ones listed on the Royal Gardens of Kew's World Checklist of Names. I have, however, (because there has been a lot of recent work by experts to revise the taxonomy of Australian orchids) been using the fine 2006 book by David L. Jones (who is considered here to be Australia's leading taxonomist of orchids), A complete Guide of Native Orchids of Australia Including the Island Territories. This is more up-to-date than Kew's list and is accepted here by botanists as the most recent and authoritative source for the names of Australian orchids.

Have I been making a mistake using Jones' work? Perhaps it is Wikipedia policy to use the Kew list, but I can't seem to find any such policy. Please tell me if I am missing something obvious - but shouldn't we be accepting the latest classifications by the leading authority in this field? Many thanks for your help, Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded on User talk:Orchi's page to keep the discussion together.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pedicularis racemosa (Sickletop Lousewort).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose per my reasoning on Elephanthead Lousewort discussion. It is extremly hard to tell what you're looking at at thumb size, something which in my opinion limits its usefulness. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder if you would be kind enough to suggest which image is more valued for this scope, also? I didn't see any criteria that referenced the thumb size. Perhaps you might cite a criterion for your evaluation based on thumb size, or does your comment applies to the review size, as well? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes as with the other one the reference was to review size. I have looked at the review size image again and my objection for both pictures remains the same, I can barely see the plants. Also while I know it is not part of criteria, the size of an image used in an article is often smaller than review size, and I feel that this fact should also be weighed to an extent (in other words if I can't tell what the image is when I see the thumb on the VIC page, it might not be that usable, which is what VI is about.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. But, which image is more valued for this scope, in your opinion, please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I have looked over most of the images in the scope its hard to find one that shows the entire plant. That being said my vote remains the same, regardles of the quality of the other images, this image is not of sufficient quality at review size or lower to be considered exceptionally useful, which is what VI is about. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I beg to disagree. Image is good enough at review size and very good at full size. Other criteria are met. Lycaon (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Per Lycaon --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pedicularis groenlandica (Sickletop Lousewort).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support -- As I noted on the other review page, this image is much more useavle because the plant is easily seen. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Pedicularis groenlandica 9839.JPG: -1
2. Pedicularis groenlandica 22904.JPG: +1 <--
=>
File:Pedicularis groenlandica 9839.JPG: Declined.
File:Pedicularis groenlandica 22904.JPG: Promoted. <--

--Yann (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pedicularis racemosa (Sickletop Lousewort).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose per my reasoning on Elephanthead Lousewort discussion. It is extremly hard to tell what you're looking at at thumb size, something which in my opinion limits its usefulness. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder if you would be kind enough to suggest which image is more valued for this scope, also? I didn't see any criteria that referenced the thumb size. Perhaps you might cite a criterion for your evaluation based on thumb size, or does your comment applies to the review size, as well? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes as with the other one the reference was to review size. I have looked at the review size image again and my objection for both pictures remains the same, I can barely see the plants. Also while I know it is not part of criteria, the size of an image used in an article is often smaller than review size, and I feel that this fact should also be weighed to an extent (in other words if I can't tell what the image is when I see the thumb on the VIC page, it might not be that usable, which is what VI is about.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. But, which image is more valued for this scope, in your opinion, please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I have looked over most of the images in the scope its hard to find one that shows the entire plant. That being said my vote remains the same, regardles of the quality of the other images, this image is not of sufficient quality at review size or lower to be considered exceptionally useful, which is what VI is about. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I beg to disagree. Image is good enough at review size and very good at full size. Other criteria are met. Lycaon (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Per Lycaon --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pedicularis groenlandica (Sickletop Lousewort).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support -- As I noted on the other review page, this image is much more useavle because the plant is easily seen. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Pedicularis groenlandica 9839.JPG: -1
2. Pedicularis groenlandica 22904.JPG: +1 <--
=>
File:Pedicularis groenlandica 9839.JPG: Declined.
File:Pedicularis groenlandica 22904.JPG: Promoted. <--

--Yann (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)