User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2011/8

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:
Vicia nigricans (Black Vetch), inflorescence.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of Olympic National Park Photos

I have a possible use for some photos of the Olympic National Park, as Guest Editor, but can only include them in sets to be submitted to an application on Facebook; which does not attribute to the author, but gets lots of Exposure to Facebook users of that Application! Would you be interested in Waiving the Attribution Requirement? I am especially interested in the Fawn Picture, and also wonder if it would be acceptable to lighten the exposure.

Thank you for your interest, but I'm unlikely to grant a less restrictive license, in so far as I understand your request. If you'd like to explain further, please sign up for a Commons account. That will enable "E-mail this user" in the toolbox on the left sidebar. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I do have an account, and I don't see the email in the Toolbox...also on your talk page, it is highlighted but doesn't connect to any email function! I haven't been contacted to be the editor of the month on the Facebook Application Green Trading Cards, but I want to find some material in case this happens as I'm the only one on the list to be the upcoming editor and I'd like to do the sets of photos on the Olympic National Park. Since it is on Facebook, the photos are displayed as Thumbnails that don't have room for attribution! So it is impossible to give any credit to the photographer!

Hi Kathycalm; I think I fixed the link on my userpage. Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. I don't recall uploading a fawn picture. Which image is it? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

SET on VI

Hello Walter,

In general there are three pictures by butterflies and sex. I only present the picture of the two sides to the label VI. Do you think that we should nominate three in the same set? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The males and females are the same on the ventral surface? I didn't find a good picture of a living male showing the dorsal surface. It may be best to wait for such an image, or to chose the "female" subscope. Did you find a good image of a living male? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For Neozephyrus quercus ventral surfaces are almost identical for both sexes. I have no living specimen I have against 450,000 copies naturalized by the Museum. I opted for the moment, somewhat randomly, but I would do all ... if I have another life.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was impressed by the set for Charaxes numenes. It is fine work. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Adiantum aleuticum

Thanks for your work on this fern. The recognition of A. aleuticum as a separate taxon from A. pedatum has taken a while to propagate, probably because they're so morphologically similar. Could you just check one thing, though? I'm pretty sure the fern depicted in File:Tenthredo sp. 6587.JPG isn't an Adiantum. Here in the east I'd guess it might be an Osmunda, but I'm not familiar enough with western ferns to pass a definitive judgment. Yours, Choess (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. I'll look into the ID in a day or two. For taxonomy, I depend on the Washington Flora Checklist.[1] It seems to be well-maintained, but limited in geographical scope. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dodecatheon pulchellum 5433.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment The background is too noisy for me. Several dust spots (>2): See 2 notes (you can delete it when you want)--Lmbuga 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks  Done --Wsiegmund 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC) QI for me--Lmbuga 22:12, 16 August 2011 (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:
Saxifraga integrifolia (Swamp Saxifrage).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope as whole plant -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Request {{Taxonavigation/taxon}} change

Hello my friend,
Could you do a modification of template {{Taxonavigation/taxon}} for me ?
I need you to replace the content of {{Taxonavigation/taxon}} by the content of {{Liné1SandBoxTemplate}}.
What I did:

• I used some #ifexpr instead of #if
• Call CheckSingularLatinRank to allow me to normalize taxon ranks in Taxonavigation usage.

Thanks Liné1 (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your work. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot my friend. Now, anytime someone provides a Taxonavigation with incorrect ranks, the the article/category will be shown in Category:Pages with incorrect biology template usage.

Did you see the latest modifications of my bot ? I think User:Rocket000 would be proud of our work ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)