User talk:Hesperian/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Image:Flora Australiensis, Volume 5 - p. 84.png and friends[edit]

Is there any reason why I shouldn't take these images, convert them into a much a single much smaller multipage DJVU? If not, I'll go ahead an do it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

G'day mate. I was in a rush the other day, so I replied only on my talk page. Replying here now in case you missed it.
No, no reason not to. I tried to do it myself, but couldn't get Any2DjVu to work. I have a PDF I can upload if that would make things simpler.
If you want to, you can do Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume X - p. 283.png and friends as well. I'm currently transcribing this set at the English Wikisource so if you djvu them please give me a little while to get sorted out over there before you delete the png files here.
Hesperian 11:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather than uploading the PDF could you either email (gmaxwell@gmail.com) it to me or send me a link? It would be save me the effort of downloading all the page. I have a tool that will explode the PDF into its component TIF pages and I can almost instantly convert that to DJVU. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This one ended up in the too-hard basket. PDF is 70Mb. I can neither upload it nor gmail it to you. Hesperian 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume X - tab. 4 (cropped).png[edit]

I am not certain at what point artifacts become something else....

Are you upscaling these images? -- carol (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, so I'll give you the whole story:
1. Download the Google booksbotanicus PDF;
2. Use Ghostscript to pull a single page out ofthe document (because the whole thing is too big to work with);
3. Use ImageMagick's convert to turn it into a PDFPNG. I've set it to 300x300 density, because the default is way, way too low. I don't know how to tell if my density setting is too high or too low.
Most images get uploaded at this point. For images like the one in the subject line, there is the further step of:
4. Use Microsoft Picture Manager to crop and auto-correct.
I realise that I am rubbish at this stuff, and that the above process is a dog's breakfast. It is for want of knowledge, not for want of enthusiasm. I'm all ears.
Hesperian 05:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Typed too fast last time - fixed a few bits. Hesperian 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish is a strong word -- at least in United States it is. It means trash and not the good kind. You shouldn't use it to describe anything that you are doing. Defaults in software might be though.
I am going to search around to figure out what density means and make a crop to show what made me think that the image had been upscaled. Probably in the reverse order listed here.
By the way, being blocked once and causing the writing of web pages on my site worked once. It worked well and I even kind of enjoyed it. I had some laughs from my watch list at english wikipedia. Being blocked and having articles removed for almost no reason is not going to cause the authoring of more personal web pages. I have found that when dealing with human beings, often an attempt to communicate works. At least in real life this is so. That not working online is kind of suspicious in appearance.
5 years (six if you count some of the things that started happening where I was living and want to still be living at) of fake things happening around me -- like the deletion of articles and things like that -- it is not real and it is not noteable and it is sad for the instigators. I was taking photographs five years ago and it occurred to me that many of the situations were complete set-ups and this happened after I started on that wiki and had almost completed the web site.
Proof that I am the author of my web site is more easily gotten by asking and the setting of an agreed up method of me proving that. Being bullied once made me laugh and consider something to write about. These hours and days that should have been spent with me living the good life I created -- it makes the second round of bullies look kind of sad and the wrongness upscales.
One of my grandfathers was self-taught and very much on the bleeding edge of technology in his day. My dad was forced to take college classes to keep a job he was doing very well with. It was in the days between vacuum tubes and capacitors and resistors and while in college, he learned about vacuum tubes. He was kind of angry about this. My articles are deleted in a similar system. That recent deletion should be restored. It was good for the script-kiddies to help me think about when their bots were doing conflicting things and such.
I am going to upload a section of that image that made me think it had been upscaled now. I would like to also stick to the few goals that my real life gave me to be goalful for. Both of my grandfathers were pretty cool, for example. If the bar is too low, it is silly to crawl under it. The ant story and the black bird story should be excellent reads; they should be written from where I want to be, not from where I was wrongly forced to be. Wrong forcing gets to be very dreary and making me wonder about the dive that humanity takes.
I am also very sorry that I was not able to find the incident that occured texturally at one of the several english wikipedia village pumps. I was needing an honest laugh when I looked for it. Was that you there and then? -- carol (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

exposed tiles?[edit]

100pxFile:TLSL-area.png The square areas that are somewhat pixelated are what made me think the image had been upscaled. The other image is where I cropped this area from. -- carol (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And on english wikipedia they are pissing on en:Blow-fly. Do watch, it is how Walmart took over the world here (United States).... -- carol (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the thing that bothers me about convert being used; the image is already a jpeg or png or gif embedded into pdf. It is an okay way to handle scans of books because the format manages them like pages but an actual pdf would have been typeset with one of the formats that does that like postscript or latex and it would have been searchable in the viewers (which with the exception of age is the way that I can tell if the document has embedded images or is typeset)....
While awaiting the download (I want to look into what happens when I use pdf2ps -- I think it should be easy to read where the images are embedded and the format they exist in within the document) I started to poke around botanicus which is where the download actually came from. They already have the pages separated out from the pdf, so there is a good chance that wget could be used to get these images that were already converted.
It is too bad that this person never finished this: http://www.xach.com/snarf/ but that is linux only software. It never lived up to its manpage....
And now I am at an impasse between botanicus and wiki. Javascript has been much abused here. It has been neutralized for this browser. Botanicus serves its pages via javascript. I suggest that you request assistance for this from some of the extremely knowledgeable people who had me blocked for politeness issues and who are also the dogfood of the Featured Pictures contest as well as experts in everything I have touched or that touched me.
I am deeply sorry that the javascript has been abused here. It makes wiki only fun for some and not for everyone. It would be much better for their experts to have a chance to live up to it as well, instead of pissing on articles.
I am going to think about how to extract images from pdf and I am going to patiently await the restoration of en:Unlimited Register Machine. There was nothing wrong with it and it was helpful for me to communicate with the bot writers with. -- carol (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having managed to compel both the State Library of New South Wales server and the National Library of Australia server into yielding up their full resolution images of Caert van't Landt van d'Eendracht,[1][2], I think I may be up to the challenge of sucking full resolution scans out of botanicus (which is, I now believe, a mirror of www.biodiversitylibrary.org, which appears to be a faster server).The most annoying part will be getting all 400-odd pages automatically. Hesperian 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have defeated their interface to the extent that I can get a full resolution jpeg. I'm on a low bandwidth connection at the moment, so it will take a while to download then upload. Hesperian 13:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at this link once it turns blue: Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume X - tab. 4.jpg; I think you will find it quite satisfactory. Thankyou for the wget hint; I've got it all figured out now, and I can see no reason why I can't upload all these pages at full resolution over the next day or so. And finally, thankyou for not letting me get away with uploading substandard images. Hesperian 14:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the previous version was over-sampled. Could you tell? I've now figured out (a) how to find out the actual dimensions of an image; (b) how to download a version that has those dimensions; and (c) how to choose a format other than jpeg.
A question for you: the scanned images are stored on the server in jp2. I can't ask for the image in jp2 format, nor png. Would it be better for me to request it in jpeg format, or request it in bmp format then losslessly convert to png later? I have a theory that the jpeg will not be as high a quality as the jp2, but the bmp and png will? Does that make sense, or is it rubbish?
Hesperian 07:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
JPEG2000. There is a plug-in for GIMP that converts these. It was written by S. Mukund (a hindi name and I am using an author abbrevation for fear of not typing the 'surname' correctly) (muks on irc). I can search around to see if I can find it and see if it has been compiled for windows. I never had any use for it. The same person also wrote the mng plugin; should be an old friend if the irc is always having the same people using the user names, but I digress.
I am uncertain of the differences between jpeg and jpeg2000. GIMP saves jpeg at the original quality lately, something that the graphics people said couldn't be done -- too bad you are not using linux as this is a feature of version 2.5.
To answer your question, I think I need to understand what "request" means, you are asking a human being for access to the images? -- carol (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And don't put my name in the summary. I am not the only person who can answer questions here. You have the sense of humor of an old friend of mine but you don't have the same operating system and that person would have been telling me this stuff and never ever would have put my name in a summary like that. So, the 'thats funny' goes only so far without the rest of the impressive stuff included. -- carol (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No humans involved. I am able to construct a URL that is interpreted by that image server as "Tell me about resource X", to which it responds "X is a JP2 file with width W and height H." I am able to construct a URL that is interpreted by that image server as "Send me X", to which it responds with "Downloading X is not permitted". And I am able to construct a URL that the image server interprets as "Send me portion P of resource X, sampled to have width w and height h, in image format F." This last URL can be used to request the entire image at the original width and height, the only restriction being that F must be JPG, BMP or TIFF. The question is, in what image format should I download?
The more I reflect upon this question, the more I think that the answer must be BMP. Leaving aside TIFF, which I haven't tried yet, the options appear to be
original scan -> store as jp2 (some loss of fidelity) -> convert to jpeg (more loss of fidelity)
versus
original scan -> store as jp2 (some loss of fidelity) -> convert to bmp (no further loss) -> convert to png (no further loss)
The latter option allows me to download a perfect copy of the stored image if not the original scan; it seems to me that that can't be beat. The only negative to this option is that those such as yourself who engage in forensic analysis of images, may think it someone incongruous for a PNG to contain PJ2 artefacts.
Hesperian 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem with me coaching from this point is that I have no experience with these files. If I had access to those files, I would try all of these conversions and see what looked the best first and then look at the file sizes and see if the 'best' was worth it. I don't expect that everyone can see the blemishes in photographs of skies that are created by dust specks on the camera sensors and I am certain that there are things that my personal optics are not able to see that the personal optics of others can, but the example that started this should be obvious.
I learned more from my experiences than I did from reading, but I learned from the reading as well. -- carol (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The BMP download is 37Mb, and conversion to PNG only gets it down to 33Mb. So that's out of the question. A 90% quality JPG is 5Mb. The 1.7Mb JPG that the server gives me is about 76% quality. I'm going to make a pragmatic decision and take the server's JPGs. I think they are pretty good - can you see any problems with the one I uploaded?
For some reason I am reluctant to publish my hack here. Would you like me to send you an email outlining how to get an image?
Hesperian 00:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I need to be able to be able to trust people again and what you typed makes sense. Thank you for the hack offer; I am in a position where I rarely use either of my two free email accounts and I am waiting since November 2005 for my web site host to upgrade that computer or enable downloading -- spam has really taken what used to be a real gem down.

(tab reset)What I am more interested in (assuming that you are the same user here and at English Wikipedia) and that you are also the same user who blocked me over the New Year there (I think it was then, I did not check the details to be certain of this). If I had had the power to block you here for uploading poor quality images to the commons when you should have known better or whatever reason I invented at the moment, would it have been this productive?

Perhaps I should not assume all of those things though. -- carol (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I should think not. Instead of working this out you would have had me screaming blue murder.
Taking firm action isn't always the right approach. Continuing discussion isn't always the right approach. The challenge is to know when to discontinue discussion and take action. I'm sure I don't always get it right. I'm satisfied that I got your first Wikipedia block right: those musical pullquotes were crap and heaps of people had been telling you so for plenty of time; that situation needed action not another voice. Possibly you could convince me the second block was too hasty.
Hesperian 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
At this point I probably should disclose that I'm currently at Commons RfA. Hesperian 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It is starting to look at English wikipedia like a D-class plant article was put into place to become the C-class for the group of experts there. My articles are being shredded by musical comedy experts. It would be nice if English Wikipedia did not take the dive that the journal Nature did. Science (the subject not the journal) is a good thing. In 1989, Nature the journal hired a magician to disprove a scientific paper. Sad sad business for a group of people who want respect. (I fully admit that this was written about, by me, in a serious physics ethics paper and the word Unicorn appeared in my writing....)
Are you causing the bot to delete categories here so that I would support you for administrative purposes? I can be trusted for that. I do not have time to block a person for quoting weird things for articles; I do have time to wait until they are finished and then talk to them about it.
I ask if you are causing the bot to delete category because of this one thing an ex-boyfriend (real life, and real years and real time spent -- not a voyeur situation via a very wrong internet and some fuzzy definitions of the terminology) who told me that once when he was a child, he threw snow on a sidewalk and then asked the lady owner to pay him to clean the walk. This last week has the look and feel of this kind of situation.
An admirer, and constant observer of the the male of the species -- carol (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You've confused me. Short answer, no I'm not causing a bot to delete any categories. I'm not aware that I'm causing any bot to do anything, unless Commonist counts as a bot. If I was causing a bot to delete categories, it wouldn't been so that you would support me, because they would be unethical, and because I don't see how the cause would have that effect, and because I don't think I need your support. I only mentioned that I was at RfA because we were talking about administration and it seemed a bit deceptive for me to withhold that from you. What makes you think I am male? Hesperian 05:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

on online masculinity[edit]

I believe I was blocked by a masculine entity --> "Protecting the encyclopedia" is not the kind of sense of humor I have experienced from the lesbians I worked with and almost every single female I worked with would not have stopped me when you did. Old women from a generation who probably do not use a computer are a different matter and not included in my summation here.
I could be wrong. When I was first online, it was with a bunch of extremely intelligent children (to me) ages 16 through 26 most of them. There is a male sense of humor online, if I could identify the signs of it more, I would. Since then, I have chosen to believe that you are the same person that blocked me while keeping in mind that the elite wikipedians aren't necessarily as elite as they like to think they are and the user names go to where ever. I have encountered elite before, it is usually found on smaller networks without so many established ways of being eh, established.
My experience with women with a strong manly hand and a loss of feminity, there is a loss of humor also, the ability to create it and the ability to enjoy it. The editing of my articles by comedy musical authorities was funny for a while -- it isn't now. -- carol (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I only have my experience to go on and my education by a wine expert who had her cellar featured in Wine Spectator. I try to keep her in mind also, she gained my respect in some areas. -- carol (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

gender not withstanding[edit]

I like how you show your strength by blocking me and let those dwebs do what they are there. I think you should consider not being administrative at any location for a while. Blocking a person for the reasons I was blocked and not blocking what is going on now -- a little self introspection might be a good idea. Seriously. -- carol (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for not being more active there. I've had my user page vandalised any number of times, and I always thought these vandals are 'cking idiots if they think I could care less if my user page says that I'm a moron, or gay, or whatever; if you want to hurt me, you have to target my contributions. Therefore I feel very sad that you are being targetted in that way. But the situation has become complex and contradictory, and it is not crystal clear what is the right thing to do, so I prefer to abstain. Do you feel that I didn't put enough effort into defending you?
I will take your advice and reflect on the matter further.
Hesperian 06:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


You have blocked people for deleting things on their own talk page, you do not block people for deleting things on talk pages. Do you want to answer to a person like that? -- carol (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I blocked someone for editing against consensus while flagrantly refusing to discuss the situation. That refusal manifested itself in a talk page header that said "I'm way too busy in real life to respond to your messages, so don't message me", and in the user then "archiving" messages within less than a minute of their being posted, with edit summaries accusing the poster of harassing them by disregarding their request to be left alone; all the while editing virtually around the clock at ten times the speed that I edit. I opposed then the mischaracterisation that I had blocked for deleting things on their talk page, and I oppose it now. Hesperian 06:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw it in my watch list. There was an edit conflict and I pasted what I had written below this. It should, I guess, only mention the block I had then. That persons edits were good ones? -- carol (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you were having more fun than "Protecting the encyclopedia". I think that having fun at anothers expense and at the expense of not so bad work is not the only kind of fun and that others can be explored.
The perception of having the kind of power to block a person for editing their own talk page but not having the perception that the same permissions/power cannot be used to actually make the encyclopedia an encyclopedia -- I don't know how to think about that even.
I watch some administrative and user pages here for vandalism. Once the suggestion of a get together was left on a user page I watch; I didn't know if that was vandalism and it wasn't actually offensive. Recently I made an administrative page look better because the administrator (at least in my perception of the situation) is probably better at writing wiki functions (like fixing things at wikimedia and image deletion bots and stuff) than the admin is at nice page layout.
I kind of wanted to raise the bar at the Plant project, but mostly, it was fun to start to make a whole family there pages look good and like they had been thoughtfully put together. I know somethings about musical comedy but not about Gilbert and Sullivan specifically; it would be wrong for me to run through those articles and delete anything that I found to be confusing. That is the simple. That is what is happening though, in reverse and you are one of the people who is allowing it, participated in it and for all I know, benefiting from it in some way. To only be strong against people who are eh, not literal here but, driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit and not against actual crimes and people commiting crimes -- big deal! Give that person more priveleges elsewhere? -- carol (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I am kind of fast for not being a bot.... -- carol (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we're coming to the crux of the matter. If you want me to undelete that article, explain to me how the topic it purported to address was distinct from the topic that the other article purported to address, and I will do so. Hesperian 06:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The musical comedy people claimed that the mathematical language being used was plagiarism for en:Unlimited Register Machine and the same for the plant article we discussed at en.wikipedia today although, the language isn't as precise as the mathematics language at the other article. The deleting of the synonyms at Dendrosenecio Johnstonii recently and the people who are removing plagiarism from plant articles need to be stopped. It isn't funny any longer. It isn't. People are beautiful and funny when they make things. -- carol (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


The cropped image[edit]

It is a good thing for images usually, but it makes the taxonomy box look kind of not right. -- carol (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I see what you mean. I don't think it's too bad. Revert me if you want. Hesperian 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I reuploaded it with a different name. The crop was a good one for many purposes. I also put a little gallery of all the different versions into the information template. They have a series of extracted image templates but after working with them for a while, I kind of like just showing the options like I did with these.
I also admit that I get a little goofy with happiness and opportunity to work on images like this. -- carol (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Along a similar line, the title page is next and then the plates. As I have not looked over them, I appreciate a prioritized list from someone who has looked them over. -- carol (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for that; that was the most sensible thing to do, and I should have done it myself, but I was up to my ears in uploads and page moves at the time.
I am glad that you are enjoying it. Some time back I did quite a lot of work on botanical illustrations with Cygnis insignis. We Wikisourced some Curtis's etc, and uploaded a lot of Bauers. It was very pleasant.
The last TLSX page has just finished uploading. If you would like to continue renewing the plates, my highest priorities from a Wikisourcing perspective are the Brunonias: Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10 - tab. 28.jpg and Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10 - tab. 29.jpg. However, from the point of view of sitting back and admiring your work, I am looking forward to seeing what you can do with Dryandra formosa: Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10 - tab. 3.jpg. Hesperian 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The question arises, Carol, as to the conditions under which these renewed versions may be used. I think it is implicit that you are making no claims over the fruit of your efforts. But I'm not sure if implicit suffices. You definitely hold a share of copyright in these renewed versions, so I think you should insert an explicit statement to the effect that you release this IP into the public domain. Or not. Hesperian 07:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, may I complement you on the licensing language being used here; it is both righteous in scent and almost incomprehensible. When a PD image is retouched it remains PD? They have a retouched template which I use almost without fail when the photographer is alive (some more than alive and even active here at commons). I am not sure how to address your concerns here and to me, IP means Internet Protocol.... -- carol (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Along a similar line, the title page is next and then the plates. As I have not looked over them, I appreciate a prioritized list from someone who has looked them over. -- carol (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(tab reset)Upload ease. I removed most if not all of the words justifying the presence of the image in the collection here. It has been my experience here that if the image page has the license and the license itself is justified that is enough for the people who watch that kind of thing here. They really seem to understand the laws about all this stuff and a couple of them understand the laws to quite a fine point. The number of words uploaders use to justify the upload has no bearing on the image being justified to be here. (It does seem to be a little different that way than at en.wikipedia). -- carol (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pasting from the people here who know everything[edit]

Category:Lilium <-- I will change that after you get a chance to look at it, or you can change it after you look at it. And perhaps one of the bots can be requested to change all of these. -- carol (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a bandaid on it. There's a can of worms there that I don't want to open right now.
That camtschatcence is a bit of a mystery, huh? I couldn't find anything on it.
Hesperian 06:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=PPMCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31
http://fichas.infojardin.com/variedades/l/lilium.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=7ENJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA44


I had a similar paste problem at english wikipedia with en:List of Lepidoptera that feed on Senecio and the file history smells like skid marks. -- carol (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

Hesperian, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
& thanks --Herby talk thyme 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Herby. Hesperian 06:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any real reason that in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brodiaea&curid=368713&diff=223238480&oldid=222610484 the taxonomy that was well researched needed to disappear? Is there any real reason that the article cannot start from where I left it? All I had wrong there was the image. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brodiaea&diff=prev&oldid=222610347 Just because I put the wrong image there? -- carol (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If "Herby" got the wrong image here, do you get stripped of your administrative position? -- carol (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You've lost me. It seems to me that nothing you contributed to that article has been removed, except the image? Maybe you're looking for the stuff you added to w:Brodiaea coronaria?
Jeez, I've only be an admin for five minutes and you're already giving me a hard time. :-) Hesperian 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I screwed up. Will fix immediately. Hesperian 07:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed now; again I apologise for that. Hesperian 07:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The "new administrator" here is editing like a musical comedy person there. Is it the same user and one who is familiar with the en Plants Project? I am not fond of doing homework for the idiots of musical comedy when there are plenty who are not that way around. Is this User:Hesperian the same as en:User:Hesperian who is part of the Plants Project that does not edit like the editors from the en:drama boards? -- carol (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We're a product of our environment; change the environment, change the person. I'm curious as to whether you think the one on Wikisource is this one, that one, or another yet again. Would you feel better if I unified my account: I would if someone hadn't stolen my name on ja. Hesperian 07:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure looks like you did some fine research there. While you were doing that research, did you happen to notice that the genus is not located in California? -- carol (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A rose by any other name.... Hesperian 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I don't think that Hesperian on wikisource is Hesperian on english wikipedia. I made the mistake of looking at a copyright thing at wikisource. It seemed to inspire the monkeys/sheep/poli-bots at en.wikipedia. I made a similar mistake at wikisource yesterday which seemed to encourage even more monkeys/sheep/poli-bots at en.wikipedia.
Have I not been consistent between en.wikipedia and here?
The quote for the Broidaea page is very nice, btw. -- carol (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm being a bit unfair on poor Sir James, who cannot defend himself. I quote his erroneous claim that it has six internal petals, but deny him an audience for his later correction that it only has three. Hesperian 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Congrats/good luck! —Giggy 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ta mate. Hesperian 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Congrats, now I'll have half as much to do :) Gnangarra 11:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah sorry about that mate - I know how much you loved doing all my dirty work for me. :-) Hesperian 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Congratulations from me too --Melburnian (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Cheers. 01:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Australasia[edit]

Look at Category:Afrotropic and imagine that for Category:Australasia. Species get located where they are as well as where they are in their taxonomy. I would really like for the species categories to only be in the locations where the species is native. So that people who take a photograph of one of Australia's many many invasive species, the photograph can go into that Ecozone subdivision, but the species shouldn't. -- carol (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecozones should only be about plants, animals and geography (I think). -- carol (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
http://www.tdwg.org/TDWG_geo2.pdf Lets make this available here also. Is this going to be a problem due the the group or whatever (politics)? The divisions made sense, except that they stuck with political divisions and I (when I morphed the Ecozone maps with these) split some political areas up. North Africa is an example of that. I think that where the line is, there is a natural geographic division that makes them really part of two different kinds of areas. I am also not sure where the Ecozones have put Hawaii and those Islands -- today, I put them in Australasia.... -- carol (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
And it was kind of fun to move the islands on the map (which is now not accurate again) -- flat maps of round things. Moving those little islands from one edge to the other was kind of mathy.... -- carol (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

G'luck there mat'y[edit]

Good luck with the non-communicative dominatrix there. I suggest you keep that one and not share it with the rest of the world.

Psychological games are new to Australia? They become fads here, I would like to see them disappear. Good luck also with "civilization".... -- carol (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou; and how is venting your frustration on your fellows over here working for you? Hesperian 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There was not these problems before the block on English wikipedia -- I find it difficult to really think that I am venting my frustration on "my fellows" here. Also, I was working both places with what seemed like good suggestions for both. The lengthy, (I assume) self-authored justification for your uploads of images that have a license is something from English wikipedia, btw. Not taking uploads or content personally, is how things mostly work here.
You are using the wrong license on those uploads, btw. It should be good for anyone achieveing admin status here to know that before achieving the status. George W. Bush is kind of the poster child for how elections fail. I think that people in United States don't even want to have a beer with him any longer which is the reason he was selected.
The frustrations came from a newish uploader here; yet you want me to say it is frustrations from here? I try not to vent my frustrations on people working here. I try to point out serious problems so that the people who have been here doing things can manage it.
Deleting a deletion template; not communicating about changes -- that is really part of an old school here that I was not asked to join and seems to function in weird and wrong ways. Thanks for asking! -- carol (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, you have been recently working "for" Bitgee. Do go get whatever thanks you need for working for that user. I have been actually (to the best of my ability) good with the people I have been working with here. Whatever you do here is not interpreted through complicated inter-wiki relationships, btw, if those exist. What you do here is probably interpreted by the people who read the content of the wikipages and click through and see what is here. The announcement and specialization in things about Australia mean that you and your photographer friend are painting a national picture for people to view. So, go ask Bitgee if what you have done meets with that ones approval. You don't need mine. -- carol (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't noticed that PD-old should be used for unenhanced scans.

I was just following through the obvious implications of a closed deletion discussion. ;-)

Hesperian 23:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Capabilities[edit]

How do you describe a person who is only capable of editing things that another person has recently made? Look at this: Category:Northern Territory unchanged as far as anything productive goes.

I wrote something about the people involved with the Russian wikipedia, it almost works for this situation with the exception of the fact that the Aussies are not advanced enough in science yet to have a space program. Feel free to read it if you would like my opinion about the abilities of the Aussie uploaders here: User_talk:George_Shuklin#Subdivisions_of_Russia

The capacity and ability to bitch and harass is an ability, I grant you that. Able to actually make something that is real to be an improvement seems to be out of the grasp of the Aussies. The footprint is not one of great mental capacity or ability.

The one linux using Aussie I met -- the only thing I ever heard him complain about and it was about something which was a challenge to his capacity and mental ability at that. He complained and bitched about his girlfriend and her little boy band music. I let that young women know about the formula for the Puerto Rican band Menudo in an attempt to explain what this linux aussie was trying to say.

So, forgive me for being disappointed with the wikipedia Aussies. I have the expectations based on that one I know and it is probably very unreasonable to set such high standards on a whole nation. -- carol (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, he was and still is cute enough to have fit the little boy band formula -- yet technically astute, artistically inclined and not enjoying the kind of music that this formula produces. Did I write G'luck to you today? I meant it. -- carol (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What, all of us Aussies? Pfctdayelise? Giggy? Gnangarra? Graham87? Matilda? Riana? That's a very broad brush you're tagging us with. Hesperian 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. -- carol (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In case you're wondering[edit]

If you've come here to ask what on earth I am doing, I am using LicenseToKill to delete my own redundant images per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#mass speedy deletion tool? Hesperian 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do they have a LicenseToRelicense bot? I know of one that searched all of the images in a category and replaced the author name, this should be almost the same if you don't have access to a tool that already can do this. -- carol (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
AWB seems to be broken on Commons; I think I will have to do it manually. :-( Hesperian 12:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is something that has to be done immediately. Try putting a request at Commons:Bots/Requests. -- carol (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

botanicus[edit]

The scans from botanicus have a mark often left by the software GIMP on them. I would have to say (knowing the history of all the software involved) that it was gimp-1.2 which is still perfectly good software. PaintShopPro used to leave a mark (the free windows version, at least did) from the free gif libraries it used. I did not know what I was seeing then, but I knew it to be PaintShopPro when I would see graphics with this one little thing about them. Software is interesting to follow -- or at least it used to be. The mark that GIMP leaves now is to not leave a mark, heh. So, these scans in which I "clean" or whatever -- they still are left with the mark of gimp-1.2. At least the ones from botanicus do.

I think that the last paragraph there is an indication that I have been doing this for too long.... -- carol (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. Is this mark something tangible/effable, or more of a gut feeling? Hesperian 12:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The free PaintShopPro mark was a gut feeling -- any software using that library would have had that problem; it was a mark of the library. It could not save with real white. The software patent expired on that long after the library was still useful except for animations and then, many of those probably should not be made. I would say this mark was and is tangible, unless the people at botanicus wanted to disguise the fact that they were using another software. Maybe they bought a repackaged version but I doubt that. -- carol (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of Sowerby's Coloured Figures of English Fungi or Mushrooms[edit]

Hello, Hesperian. After looking at it some more, I see that this book is a really interesting document to have in Commons - it is the original publication which defines the modern species names of some mushrooms. What was the reason to specify dates of 1789-1791 for it? The title page and another introductory page give a publication date of 1797, and that is also more or less the date given in external references (see this page of Index Fungorum for instance). Sometimes 1795-7 is given, or particular years in that range. If I am adding text to the image pages, could I change the date to 1797? Strobilomyces (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

wikibreak[edit]

I'm on wikibreak until Monday. Hesperian 04:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

collaboration[edit]

User_talk:Hesperian#Australasia preceeded my encounter with User:Bidgee. I am interested in unbiased, farsighted (the use of that term which is not optical) and non-emotional input.

The problem with that encounter was that it involved several user names that are the same at English wikipedia and also was only about one little, itty bitty piece of the tree where had there been collaborative communication, a whole list could have been provided.

You can feel free to explain what the word "collaboration" means to you and I will be able to compare it with what that word means to me.

I will be honest, the situation that I am in smells strongly of wrong-doing, however, this wrong-doing was not done by me. Six years of me having problems for the wrong doing of others. Do you know, I got fired from being a substitute teacher because I could not manage a class of between 20-30 high schoolers who were on ecstacy? One person being fired for that reason must imply that all of the retained high school teachers (both subs and official ones) can handle 20-30 high schoolers on that drug or else the rules are only an additional problem and not a solution.

English wikipedia has done something similar to this. I am not responsible for their wrong-doings. Petey, I have no idea what the problem is there with this one exception -- I am not responsible for that either. -- carol (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

one[edit]

One good suggestion at English wikipedia.

Does a suggestion make a collaboration in the way you define that word? -- carol (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And one other request for assistance in which I was left on my own and failed at. I am going to suggest that there was an abuse of the word Celery that then and I am not too interested in that if that is what collaboration is.... -- carol (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I get the point Carol. I have twice, or more, walked away from opportunities to collaborate with you, when you have reasonable cause to expect that I would stay and play, and you're not happy about it. Tough bickies; this is a hobby, not a job, and I don't do anything I don't want to do. If you can't work with someone as selfish as me, go find someone else to work with. Hesperian 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Tough bickies"? You asked for a recount. -- carol (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

wow[edit]

youre quick - hope theyre ok SatuSuro (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

having now photo'ed the var sessilis and now the var. cygnorum - I can see why the diff is so obvious SatuSuro (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as certain as you; up in them thar hills you'll sometimes find var. sessilis with those wedge-shaped leaves, growing alongside var. sessilis with the other leaves; or a branch on a bush with all wedge-shaped leaves.
Number 2 was a tad over-exposed; I've taken the liberty of correcting it a wee bit.
There's room for them both in the article I think. Thanks again.
Hesperian 12:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to modify any of the images. Well reviewing my piccies - and looking at the book at kings park - the prickles at the top only cygnorum, and prickles all down the sides sessilis - it seemed straight forward at the kings park info place - but i suppose - i completely forgot to photo the drawings from the book while i was at the info place - the question is how the cordata and the flabellifolia are distinguished for the mug punters like self - will have to go back to the articles to see whether the diff is sufficiently explained SatuSuro (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Acacia cambagei.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Acacia cambagei.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Herby talk thyme 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The explanation for the above can be seen here. The fact that I have the wrong template should also be explained there as that is what the advice appears to be. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

checked it[edit]

Nah it was the straight en - notht eh gb variety - not sure what the issue is will check again on friday SatuSuro (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a page that is doing it? Hesperian 02:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Gawd ive made so many mistakes today with uploading - I'll try in a sec - btw thansk for the hakea id - still heap and heaps of images to go yet sigh SatuSuro (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wheatbelt_panorama-2.JPG has a red textto me SatuSuro (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've got it figured out now; sorry it took my so long.
Commons is a multi-language wiki, so ideally every image should have a description in every language. And when you add a description, you should wrap it in the {{en}} template e.g. {{en|Scenery near Centenary Hill east of Northam, Western Australia}} so that the server knows what language you've written it in.
When an image has descriptions in a lot of different languages, it gets a bit hard to find the description in your own language. So some clever dick invented a Gadget called MyLangNotify which displays the description in your own language much bigger than all the others. But it only works if {{en}} has been used! If it doesn't find a description wrapped in {{en}}, it thinks there is no description in your language, and it puts that red text there.
If you have a look in the "Gadgets" tab of your "my preferences", under "Maintenance" you will find you have ticked the MyLangNotify box.
So there are two things you can do. You can either untick the MyLangNotify box, and those messages will go away forever as soon as your browser cache is cleared; or you can leave MyLangNotify turned on, and wrap any English descriptions you find in {{en}}.
Hesperian 05:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - much appreciate the explanation - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Different[edit]

I am convinced that the strettle road sessilis of a year ago or whenever are diff from another sesslis by the nature of the leaf - strettler road variety the leaf was harder and more shiny - this one from sunday is more rougher fibrous and darker green as at Image:Another sesselis 9.JPG - cripes when i get into the damned lichens (en user page) its another story - four books and bloody this and that in specialist terminology - oh well its all fun :) - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

Considering the cockups so far i think i will simply name flowers Location satusuro flower in future the residual embarrasment of titles wrong will hut me forever if i am not careful - I assume there is no room for renaming? SatuSuro (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Abolutely there is. If you're not happy with the original name, upload under a new name, and let me know. I'll be happy to switch the image calls over and delete the old for you. Hesperian 13:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK probably drawn out over time - will do SatuSuro (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nivea?[edit]

Banksia dallanneKNP.JPG
KNP Banksia Dell....JPG

Your enthusiasm of yesterday - and the ants it seems - why nivea and not lindleyana (not that I'd know the diff but) ? SatuSuro (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I think i dont know the diff bet banksia and dryandra - so ignore all this, ta SatuSuro (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:KNP_-_SatuSuro_-_11.JPG maybe that will not help SatuSuro (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Crikey, you're right!
See the hole in the middle of the flower? That hole marks it as a member of what was formerly Dryandra ser. Niveae. I checked each species in that series, and I thought I had established that B. nivea was the only member of the series that grows near Perth. Now I've double-checked and B. dallanneyi (a.k.a. Dryandra lindleyana) does too. So it could be B. dallanneyi. I'll have a fresh go at it tonight. Hesperian 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. The diagnostics I've managed to bring to bear are:
  1. B. dallanneyi has 50–70 flowers per head; B. nivea 70–90. I count about 60 here.
  2. The pistils of B. dallanneyi are "cream at base, cream, pink or maroon above"; B. nivea's are "cream or red"
  3. Involucral bracts: lanceolate versus ovate; it is kinda hard to see but if you twisted my arm I would call them lanceolate.
So I'll go with B. dallanneyi (= Dryandra lindleyana). Thanks for that. Hesperian 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK i'll try to check something from a book i brought from the kings park shop this arvo for a reasonable cross check - worse case Ill go back and find another and try another piccie in the next day or so SatuSuro (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra piccie - same but degraded SatuSuro (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

G got one today - he should be putting it up I hope as well - expect fun and excitement (?) in the orchids department SatuSuro (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you[edit]

mind deleting Image:Pultenaea scabra.jpg, now uploaded under correct name Image:Aotus ericoides.jpg Melburnian (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Gnangarra 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gnang. Melburnian (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks G. (nb: if you want Hesperian to do something, ask on Gnangarra's talk page; if you want Gnangarra to do something, ask on Hesperian's talk page.) Hesperian 02:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I kick something across the Bight to one of you, and the other takes a specky over the top :) Melburnian (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to think of it as a disciplined spoil. Hesperian 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one for deletion - Image:Grevillea erictiloba.jpg (replaced by Image:Grevillea erectiloba.jpg) Melburnian (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Melburnian (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you[edit]

Call off your dog? -- carol (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Which dog would that be? Hesperian 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, how many do you have that attack when not even provoked? -- carol (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick moves?[edit]

I have been mucking around in Acacia and kin. It seems as if (or My guess is that) UniProt has perhaps revived the genus Vachellia and perhaps APNI never merged it with Acacia a genus which has too many in my opinion. That opinion should be disregarded though as it is based on numbers of species and not for any real reason.

Lengthy opening due to that I am not as certain about this deletion request as I usually am. Politically I am asking you because APNI supports it. Enough full disclosure?

Can you delete Category:Acacia smallii and Category:Acacia minuta and Category:Acacia farnesiana as they are all Category:Vachellia farnesiana and also located there now? I retained the gallery names, subcategorized them there and also linked them in the list of synonyms. Most of the wikipedias seem to be pointing to one or another of the galleries here (I did not check them all though).

I kind of like keeping the synonym galleries the same name and this is a good instance of that. Even Acacia smallii gets called a variety of whatever genus this species farnesiana belongs to, so it all just seems to look and exist here nicely like that. And once again, almost everything in this paragraph is my opinion with the exception of the stuff about Acacia smallii.

It really was a move everything and request deletion request. I make no claim that these categories were not populated even just an hour ago though. -- carol (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC) ps. I can provide the urls for everything except APNI which I just believed the two other sites about. http://botany.si.edu/ing/INGsearch.cfm?searchword=Vachellia <-- where I started. -- carol (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that checks out. Done. Hesperian 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It should also be good to have someone familiar with the subject matter to check me (and others) with this kind of request. Defaulting to the closest flora or the newest information doesn't always work. Thanks for looking into it. -- carol (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

source information "Image:A Sketch of the Vegetation of the Swan River Colony"[edit]

Source info on the 5 images updated. Thanks for the hint, I forgot! maarten Sepp (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

fingertips[edit]

File:The_Botanical_Magazine,_Plate_108_(Volume_3,_1790).png <--> TMBG Fingertips -- carol (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up there, Carol; nice job. Hesperian 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
While the temptation to just "grade myself" started in my university literature classes when I was given a poor score for my ideas of what the fiction I was reading meant -- the actual starting point for my insistence of grading myself was at the same university, this time a few years later and for calc-based Electricity and Magnetism. I had no idea of what we had been learning and asked to withdraw from the class. The teacher assured me that everything was fine because I was receiving a "C" for my work. I was perhaps not understanding then thinking that I was taking these classes to learn the subject, but I still would have the same lack of understanding now.
I give my efforts with these images a "fair". I have accomplished some "good" and I have also accomplished some excellent but this work has been only fair -- what I am uploading is slightly better than the original scans you uploaded. I say this based on what I would pay to make prints of. I would do more work on them before purchasing a print.
Had I made those scans, I would have (depending on the conditions and stipulations of the task, ie. time limitations, where the scanner was and things like that) given myself a below fair assessment.
I appreciate the "good job", however, it has the feeling that a tiger was sent to do a pigs job. OH! And if I were assigning myself a grade based on work I have seen here, I would give it an excellent.
Choice of songs -- impeccible. -- carol (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I am easily impressed because I have never performed this particular task myself, and wouldn't know where to start. What would be the visible difference between a "fair" job of cloning out the fingers, and an "excellent" job of cloning out the fingers?
Was that Primus?
Hesperian
They Might Be Giants from Apollo 18 which also includes the very handy "The Statue Got Me High". Too bad there were more than 18 scans with finger tips on them, by the way, since Fingertips is track 18 on that recording. -- carol (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dupe cat?[edit]

Category:Botanical books and Category:Botany books? Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. [3] Hesperian 11:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Hi Hesperian, COM:TOL dead? It would seem so. Anyway, I was looking for a third opinion. I'm currently in a dispute with someone who is pretty set in his views and, despite my reasons for not doing so, just went ahead and made about 500 changes to the collection of articles I had arranged. That would be in breach of WP:POINT, but arguing doesn't seem to get me very far with this guy. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the wrong person to ask, as Cygnis is a friend of mine. I assure you he is good value in real life, and on wiki too, once you get to know him—sensible, helpful and even accommodating. His talk page is on my watchlist, and I have seen your dispute play out. I would have interjected by now if I could think of anything to contribute that might actually help.
I can see your perspective. You like to do things your way. That is not a pejorative comment. I too like to do things my way. It is not about being stubborn or inflexible. It is about coming up with a creative solution to an organisational problem, instead of being bound by the uncreative conventions of others. One doesn't like to see one's hard work undone, simply because someone comes along who sees things differently.
I can see Cygnis's perspective too. You have deviated from the norm, and Cygnis doesn't like it. It is not that he doesn't like it because it has deviated from the norm. Rather, he doesn't like what you've done, and thinks he is within his rights to move things back towards the norm, since the norm presumably approximates consensus.
On the technical side of things, I agree with Cygnis. I really feel quite strongly that categories should be in the most specific parent category. In my experience, whenever someone has a reason to make an exception for that, with a bit of thought that reason can be mapped onto a solution that preserves the "most specific parent" rule.
In this case, for example, I assume that you don't want to put every species of Morelia in the family category; that would defeat the purpose of having a genus category. So I assume then that you want to segregate the genus galleries by putting them directly into the family category. Well then, why not create Category:Pythonidae genera? Morelia (genus) would belong in there, but Category:Morelia (genus) wouldn't because not everything in that category is a genus.
Taken in isolation, this proposal probably seems silly, but if you also break out Category:Squamata families and Category:Squamata genera, perhaps also Category:Morelia species and Category:Squamata species, and even Category:Squamata taxa by rank... well, you have the beginning of an enhancement to your overall category structure that captures the rank separation you're looking for, keeps us category wonks happy, and improves your overall categorisation scheme so much that it can hardly even be called a compromise.
Hesperian 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I ran into a few problems while using (genus) in the name due to the fact that there are some genus names that are shared between animal taxonomy and plant taxonomy. I started to used "Genus (family)" to title categories with because of that. Via templates, the family name within parenthesis can be added into these problem genus without the person adding the template worrying about it. -- carol (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. The only disagreement that I have with Cygnis is how articles should be categorized. When I started out here, all I worked with was categories. Then somebody came along and told me we also had to make matching articles for all the categories; I thought this was nuts, but what the hell. Subsequently, the question was: Do I put each article in its matching category, or parallel to it in the category for the upper taxon? I remember asking around to see if there was a guideline for this, but there was none. Instead, I was told that the decision was usually a matter of taste. Therefore, I had to make a decision, and that was to place the articles in the categories for their parent taxa. In my view this has three advantages, two minor and one major:
  • It seems logical to treat an article and a category for a taxon the same way. The only difference is that the one can contain more articles and categories while the other cannot.
  • Treating them the same has the advantage of making it slightly easier to create new counterparts for them because, except for the gallery tags in the articles, they are basically the same -- you just copy and paste.
  • The greatest advantage by far, however, it that it makes maintenance much easier by providing better overviews. By that I mean that it becomes much easier to check for new articles and categories, because almost nobody bothers to make the matching counterparts (I've yet to see it happen). Basically, all I needed to do was to periodically browse around no deeper that the family or subfamily level. There, I would see only entries for the various genera, each followed by a pair of parentheses. The information between the parentheses was what it was all about, e.g. "(2 C, 2 P)." In this case, I could be 99.999% certain that this would mean that the genus category below would contain two species categories plus two matching species pages (articles). If any number pairs did not match, I would know to check, because invariably it meant that someone had created a new category or page that needed to be checked and/or standardized.
This all seemed wonderful, but for a while there was one drawback to this scheme: some people complained that if they were viewing the contents of a category and the matching article was not located within it, they would not be able to find that article as easily. This is what Cygnis doesn't like. I solved this problem with the help of an administrator who was willing to add a new feature to the {{Taxonavigation}} template (see this discussion). This new feature makes it possible to navigate to a taxon's matching article/category simply by clicking on it's name in the taxonavigation template: if the name is not red/black, then the (blue) link will take you there. In other words, visitors no longer have to know where the matching article is located, because they can see that it exists from within the category overview and can always get there with a single click.
Unfortunately, none of this made any impression on Cygnis. This is frustrating for me, because I know my system has real practical value. Now I simply don't feel like maintaining this collection any longer, because the current order will force anyone to drill down through the categories all the way to the species level to find out whether or not people have been adding new categories or articles -- it's just too time-consuming. Will Cygnis take over doing this? I'm not holding my breath. --Jwinius (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not certain that Hesperian has any experience with templates. I am curious at your choice of arbitrator here. -- carol (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Work on book categories[edit]

I've noticed your work in this area - good to see someone sorting things out. Richard001 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

restore the mistake please?[edit]

About User_talk:CarolSpears#cloning. I am not software and I make mistakes. I don't mind having a record of mistakes. I actually do not think that software can be authored that renovates images as well as an experienced living being can; I say this having authored scripts for software that potentially could do the steps I am doing. Not the cloning of the fingers, but the other stuff I am doing.

Cloning over the fingers that are in those scans. Even my not so great work at this (I have not been very mindful of repetitive spots on the paper and such) -- the discoloration of the paper varies from page to page so I use different areas for each clone. A script cannot do this. A script might be able to isolate where the fingers appear on the page edge -- I just do not think that software can do this very well.

I do, however, think that administrators can give the appearance that a person is software. When you restore that uploading mistake that I made, I will think that you are not doing this.

I think that it is a sad commentary on the people who make decisions and such that have put me into this sad sad sad position where I have the time to manually repair these images. It should be more interesting to find out who these people are and ask them (or tell them) when and where they get off. That is a slang in the United States with many meanings; used here for when and where they get off the gravy train.

In the meanwhile, I would like to remain a living being who makes mistakes sometimes. Thank you. -- carol (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why WikiMedia would bother serving evidence of your mistakes if the sole reason to do so is to prove you are human. Since when is proving Carol Spears is human part of the Commons mission statement?
But meh, whatever, restored. Enjoy your humanity.
Hesperian 00:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, firstly, thank you. And about your very good point, it should not be a goal of any interface to de-humanize people. This is not to say that I have not had interesting chats with irc bots and the like. Probably my chats were more interesting when 1)I wrote or knew in advance the possible answers and 2)the people needed a break or were not up to the banter.
Those uploads: the upload is scripted? The names of the files -- at least a part of the name needs to be manually entered, I think. Also, the name of the plant is not on the uploaded page but appears in the gallery page for them -- is the gallery making scripted? I ask these questions because there is no evidence that you (or your operators) are human. -- carol (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(I never cheated at my golf scores either because I wanted to improve my game not appear to win individual matches. Probably I am weak and stupid and lacking in self-esteem because I am like this. When I was younger, it angered me when I saw what I considered to be cheating like this. The older I get, the more it amuses me, maybe. Not that any of this matters.) -- carol (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Somewhat scripted, yes. I have a spreadsheet that uses the volume number, page numbers, plate number, plate names, etc, to generate commands for downloading, format conversion, renaming, and also the gallery code. For each volume, I spend a good deal of time (hours) carefully updating the spreadsheet. Then the rest is easy.

I use Commonist to upload, and as far as I know it is not possible to script it in the way that I have scripted the rest. I would have to enter the plate name manually for each upload, and I can't be bothered doing that.

I never cheated at golf either, because I've never played it. I also never played the "I have more uploads than you" game, so I guess I never cheated at that either.

Hesperian 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Computers are for redundant tasks. Several of the things that I do between downloading the original image and uploading the four versions after the restoration could be scripted -- the color manipulation parts not though so the redundant parts of this process are kind of a nice break from the difficult task and also where the mistakes get made. That last incite was more about the Blanco images that I will soon have restored the whole collection here of. The accuracy of your plate naming will be unknown to me until those images appear in the species categories. The few that I know seemed to be accurate. The "Hesperian" at English wikipedia has experience writing plant articles there and should have some understanding of good ways to alter Public Domained illustrations for articles would be.
The illustrations found in Category:The Cactaceae that have "filtered" in the name give the appearance of having been potentially scripted. Perhaps it was people following instructions. My first restorations were too blue like these. Using the automatic white point to make yellowed and pinkish paper white again leaves too much blue in the image. It is unfortunate that the originals were not uploaded here.
Upload contests are a real boring idea to me. They are already won by those with the old books, a scanner and time to spend doing this. Your uploads are at least very nice for the commons to have but such a contest might make for a bunch of not so great uploads and other problems. Personally, I have been consistent to say that I am very unhappily relocated and perhaps before my relocation, contests were started where team work should have been the approach. I was not bragging when I said that I had been the third highest selling cashier who was also responsible for 95% of the closing paperwork that day. I was telling the writer of the schedules that she had a problem with the shift manager before me in that this manager was abusive of her position and ridding my shift of needed people. "Contests" like this get won by stupidity and people who are on the same team not playing on the same team. My goal was to efficiently sell the stuff that was in the store for the purpose of being sold. It is difficult for me to provide a reason that this was so wrong of me that I became demoted and eventually un-hired. "Divide and conquer" should be avoided?
Once I almost made a hole-in-one. My experience playing golf is limited to just a couple of years and irregularly then. My putting was terrible and seemed to get worse with experience. To honestly qualify my almost making a hole-in-one, I have to describe the hole which was made to make a hole-in-one much easier to obtain. It was a short hole compared to the others. The tee was at the top of a hill and the hole in the valley and within plain simple sight -- no sand edged curving between tee and hole, no looking between tall trees to see the tee. An experienced, serious golfer should be embarrassed to not make the hole in one at this hole. All that being said, the feeling that day, of that tee-off, those few moments of almost making it was very incredible and one that I would not want to forget or erase by having lied about the ease of it or my abilities before I almost made that.
I don't always understand sports. When I was younger, I thought golf to be among the silliest of them. Not that much of that opinion has changed throughout the years. It was a nice way to see individual improvement. The activity was surprisingly nice. The idea that this is a little white ball and all of these very importent men are self-driven to put the little white ball into a hole they cannot see is still impressively funny to me to think about. I don't always understand my species.... -- carol (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


You are wise to recognise that the project that I have undertaken here decomposes into a series of tasks almost all of which are redundant. Yes, this has resulted in a large number of large uploads for relatively little effort. Yes, this will mislead those who would judge the value of a person's contributions by the number and size of their uploads. I don't care. Hesperian 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the people I have cared for who are responsible for me not caring now. Long long ago I ceased to care for process, especially when the process is broken. Sports often is there to promote teamwork but the sport needs to be played where it is supposed to be played. I am sorry for the people who give up academic credibility for their game, especially since I don't think that athletic ability and intelligence are mutually exclusive.
It is a few ideas which I still care about. It has been too easy to prove that investments in people will fail. An idea that is really very good should be difficult to disprove.
Do you know what is one of the biggest disappointments to me these last few years? Fiction. Fiction has been given, by definition, the widest berth on the vehicle. I start to think that when fiction fails it is because it is being written to do things other than to entertain and to present ideas to think about. Perhaps it is being written to justify bad and wrong decisions. Perhaps worse, it is being written to make people feel wrong or as a vehicle to abuse technology.
If you were by a road that had a broken bridge on it and you did everything you could to tell people that it needed to be fixed and put signs up to say don't drive on this road and tried to talk to all of the people you knew and cared about and had invested time, effort and shared resources with; would you watch as the road failed and vehicles crashed while trying to drive the road or would you pretend it is not there?
Fiction was by definition given a wide berth. When it gets written for the wrong reasons or by people who do not understand the audience or basic dramatic structure, it fails.
In your not caring, try not to be poorly written fiction. -- carol (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If the character doesn't fit the narrative, which should be changed? Hesperian 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I have found it extremely difficult to write fiction in these recent years. The thing I wrote and put online that seems to be in the center of many (not all) of my problems I turned into fiction by having the main character assume some management techniques which were anti-productive towards the goal of the establishment the story was about. I opted to do that because the abuse of the employees was worth mentioning yet my intention for writing it was not to air our dirty laundry or voice opposition in public about things that were going wrong. I wanted anyone reading the story to love the people and the atmosphere as much as I did and I thought that the real life wheels turning would fix the real life problem.
Business picked up and things seemed to respond positively to the mostly non-fiction but I started to notice posers (usually when I had my camera with me, sometimes at the store). One thing that happened at the store, one of the children (high school age) who worked there told me he wanted to be a store manager and I told him that he could do better than that. He was an intelligent child, in my opinion. I saw the store manager as needing people like me (and a handful of others who knew how to order stock and knew who was shopping there and what they wanted) who knew what was going on to run the place. Me and the people who knew what was going on and helped to make the store run better were not being paid enough to live there. So I still say that if that store manager was making enough income to live there and to consider having a family there, that this child could still do better and have a career in which the working staff gets paid enough. And there was a posed situation right after that discussion in which a customer could not determine the difference between the brand name and a product. I saw some incredible amount of posing then, stuff that I would not have written.
After the posers, relationships started to break down at that store, somewhat -- or at least change. I did not have a television set at the time and the people I was working with and had written about started talking fondly of a competition television show. One that I would not have wasted my valuable time watching if I had had a television set. I became de-moted and mismanagement of people became the norm for the non-demoted and there was one day in which a child who was promoted after I was demoted took the busy cash register while three people who were being paid to cashier were sitting there at our empty registers watching her cash out all of the shoppers.
The Hesperian at English wikipedia blocked me for making boring plant articles more fun to read. That was kind of funny. No, that is a lie. That made me really laugh actually, once I settled down some so let me call really funny. I appreciate now that it was done with the goal of wikipedia in mind and I appreciate how my writing skills changed for the better from that. Now, I sense the same kind of posers as I encountered after that first online thing was. There is a difference between really funny relationships with people and eh, posers who want to do the same thing but do not have that kind of dynamic either of personality or relationship with the "temporarily stopped". Had you invented a reason or made your strong stance for the wrong reasons, the user Hesperian would have not been funny and would have left the footprint of having been an oportunistic moron. I see way to many opportunistic morons everywhere now. I don't like to look around where I am the way I used to. I used to love people -- enjoy their individuality and self-expression. I don't really see much individuality and self-expression when I am seeing opportunistic morons.
I have some serious questions about competition within. Some of this is healthy but when it forgets that the real competition is with the real competitors it becomes an enigma; like, what is this doing here and how come the people in authority don't make it stop. I encountered this when I was waitressing. One of the other waitresses seemed to appoint herself to be my enemy. Our real "enemy" was naturally other restaurants that were viing for the same business which were on the same road. When the internal competition is encouraged, I gotta wonder what the people who are supposed to be running things are doing. I have these questions now about wikimedia projects.
I suggest that you change the narrative to fit the real character, if it is a character worth writing about or narrating. I suggest that if you are managing people that you remember what the real work is that is supposed to be being accomplished. And, from my own really really bad experience, I wrote a loving tale of a place that I really enjoyed. If you find anyone writing about you this way, ask them who the author thinks the audience is. I think that the author has a better idea of who the audience is than the characters in the story do. -- carol (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
But of course, the narrative that best "fit"s the character might not be very pleasant for them. Thank heavens the characters don't get to choose their own narrative; else every book would be as dull as old grey socks.
There would not be a contradiction if she appointed herself your enemy because she thought you were bad for business; but probably she was just an opportunistic moron. Can you reliably tell the difference between opportunistic wikimorons, and people who think opposing you promotes the wiki's goals?
Hesperian 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I can only show where administrators used their enabling but not used their ability to communicate. I have no evidence that the opposition was against me personally. The dreams, the interrupted sleeping, the sense of punishment from the real world when I dare to go into it -- all unprovable and possibly not worth mentioning with the exception that I am extremely loyal to an idea and none of that fits well with that idea.
That waitress, at the time having an enemy on staff with me made no sense. It slowly occurred to me that she was working against me. Even with the slow realization, it had to be augmented by her friends chastisizing me for sharing valuable information I had with her for me to realize how much of a self-appointed enemy she was. More recently in a discussion of funding -- she had funded the building of her home with municipal bonds from my hometown -- I learned that these bonds need to mature for several years before becoming useful that way. The whole thing leaves a, eh, soapy taste in my mouth in the not literal sense of that.
That you were funny, only a little abusive and still working within my idea that I aim my loyalty at; I thank you. It is difficult to work within a format, I know this. -- carol (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Monarda fistulosa (Edwards).jpg[edit]

I have recently closed that deletion request. Please update the image's description and replace the image wherever needed. Thanks, odder 12:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

when the success doesn't equal the ability[edit]

I have an example of a very suspicious set of contributions, which if treated as if it is a footprint, has a different foot starting here than it has more recently.

A categorization bot. This kind of thing is mostly impractical unless the descriptions are detailed and perhaps formatted within very narrow and somewhat simple parameters. I learned of the existing category tree here by categorizing images -- not by reading about it. I cannot remember if I made category's which did not exist yet for the images I categorized but I tend to start out kind of slowly when learning a new system so this would have been something I started later in the greater task. My feeling that my privacy has been invaded is strong. This feeling cannot be evaded or dispelled or avoided always while communicating via one of the interfaces where privacy can be invaded. That being said, shortly after that categorization spree, a new bot started to work uploading images from nl.wikipedia to here. It made lousy categorization choices. A real being would have to look up many things online and learn how to determine from the image what its subject is -- things that a bot cannot do. The author of the bot made the claim that software cannot categorize images very well. This is the starting footprint.

At the same time that the categorization software was attempted, that same author found a way to find duplicate images if they existed here. This was a great feat for software here! There was some "talk" about the difference between hashmarked lists and other listing mechanisms. Now, when I accidentally upload an image which is already here, the software finds the duplicate and asks if I really want to do this. I have some suspicion about the upload thingies here though; I don't know that my upload is the same as others. The reason for this is that I was not allowed to upload SVG with Inkscape spam in it but others were allowed to do this. This seems to be misapplied technology where one user is singled out when there should be an agreement about what SVG are allowed here. The limited value of this kind of thing here is that out of perhaps 50 of my uploads only 1 needed to have the inkscape spam removed from it. I can honestly say that I don't really need or want the help to live up to my own standards and have impressive questions regarding the usefulness of any person who is investing their time in this task.

Okay, then the footprint of the categorization/duplicate finding user changed. There was a lot of messages left on user pages -- ToL people are the ones that I saw. Condescending and somewhat abusive messages about the need to categorize images. The user became creepy and happily oppressive. I have a "whatever" stance for those who have a talk page appearance of being creepy and abusive. So, "whatever" with the following exception: what the new bot did.

The new bot did what the old ToL compromise did, which was to take the images from the species named galleries and dump them into the genus category. I know this because, knowing that a bot would be doing this -- grabbing images from galleries and putting them into categories -- I made a lot of categories for species which had galleries for them. To help the bot. To give the software someplace to put them.

This is just a guess now, but that user became a person who was only able to use existing software and not the knowledgible person who discovered the hashmarked list. That bot was incredibly stupid and a waste of whatever resources it and its user were given access to. It was a stupid and somewhat "gay" game here. I mean "gay" in the deroggatory meaning of the word and not necessarily homosexual meaning of the word. If I can determine a different word that explains the creepy, making problems where they don't exist, talking one way but doing things another, making old problems again; in media and theatrics, the way I am using this word is to describe a sub-culture that thrives on mommy and daddy problems. I personally do not think that dressing like a woman gives the non-female dresser any insight into what it is like to be a woman more than what it is like to be the woman they think that women should be. GAY like that. Condescending, creepy and abusive, among other things.

What I have just outlined here are bad experiences with three users. User names can be provided.

Also, I don't like the deletion notice here. It seems like it is a mirror of English wikipedia politics. One image at a time management which makes a lot of talk at the same time that a lot of mess is being made. Don't you think that if the users involved in this should have more useful things to spend the minutes of their lives doing? Picking ones own nose might perhaps be more productive as, even if this is not socially accepted, the activity completes the task of ridding the body of previously successfully filtered goo. -- carol (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

software?[edit]

Are you using Image Magik or something else to accomplish that eh, great accomplishment? -- carol (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ImageMagick. Of course, most of the math happens offline. The end result of the math is a 3x3 spectral transformation matrix that I can pass to convert -recolor. Hesperian 07:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I really enjoyed writing scripts for GIMP with Python. The problem with GIMP and python, however, is the last I knew it was only available for Linux and possibly other *nix. Perhaps I am writing about a good time I spent with a now dead friend; writing scripts, doing the website, being serious about my day job -- these things/accomplishments are only this to me and seemed to work together to keep me from a life and lifestyle I really wanted. Not doing any of them has been as effective; it is a casual interest to me that the abuse or ignorance of one person has effectively killed other achievement among that group. It is sad. The project I was involved in was a great thing -- it has been replaced with a farce of abuse. I won't be scripting anything so great as what your plug-in could be any time soon. I am however impressed by how thoroughly life and love and enjoyment can be sucked out of a person; I would not have thought it was possible before. I don't understand the cause, I just know the effect and I am very sorry about that.
I recommend not interacting with anyone who is currently involved but at the same time, you really should consider scripting that. It wasn't the software, it was the people. It is not mine to do any more, not until I get my life and stuff back with an apology and something reasonable to replace the last 6 years with. I really want to encourage you to do this though and it seems obvious to me how many problems I even have talking about something as cool as scripting for that software is. It runs from the command line also and Python is really nice for straight-forward scripting.
http://docs.python.org/3.0/library/ <-- documentation which I judge all other documentation against
http://www.gimp.org/docs/python/index.html <-- they messed up the history, forged some old emails and who knows what else but they didn't screw with this thing I put there!! Old stuff now, python is included with the source and is a configure option now. There are examples of scripts in the source also, so even if you get a binary installation of it, the source code has much to show.
This should not be baggage for you as it apparently became for me. I cannot recommend the activity more highly though, it really was one of the very fun things I have done.
Maybe it has been done before, but I was not the only person to think that it was the stuff that dissertations are made of. And let me tell you, I have seen some software written from papers and it when mature was not as good as this one is right now. -- carol (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Such enthusiasm makes me nervous. I want to protest that this has only been tested on one image; maybe this is the only image in the world that it will work on. Hesperian 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost all of those pages are discolored similarly. -- carol (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A nice idea continued[edit]

Back (and perhaps back) to A nice idea that didn't work. The linear transformation of those images -- it is really bothering me -- I have it in my mind that I saw this before.

These last few years have been unlike all of the other years I have lived through (this is the defensive part: for if I am mistaken or if I am not mistaken and am having the problem I am about to outline). Memories from them are not being cherished by me and in fact, these years have given me the time and inspiration to question and perhaps flip all previous good memories into bad ones. I can see no purpose for such an exercise and not cherishing the days that are being lived is not a good way to keep the memories of them; at least not for me.

So, this thing that is bothering me right now, it is like picking a single grinning, winking smiley face out of hundreds of stupified, not smiling "smiley" faces -- all similarly drawn and in even rows. I am probably not so good at this actual task in real life -- it is being presented here however as an example of how this thing is pestering me:

I think I saw this transformation of yours at a time when I really thought I was keeping an eye on the group of graphic development people and looking for useful things for my web site. I remember seeing something either exactly like your transformation method or extremely similar to it and I also remember thinking that it was not generic (the non-plant application of this word, btw) enough for my web site or to suggest being included in the source. That was where my brain was at then and actually, where it should have been! I don't know how many of my current problems have to do with the people involved there not keeping their minds on what was supposed to be going on there, that is a completely different problem with the exception of all the stuff I am trying to forget.

Some problems with this pestering idea I have now -- non-linear time and an apology that might be due. The transformation is kind of limited to just a few applications but so was my experience with applications of that software at the time.

I was having a whole bunch of dreams which were not mine in a similar set of months that I am trying not to remember. One of those dreams was not bad though and was mine. I did not think it was possible to have dreams that were not your own, but I did. I really did. The dream that was mine was not so much a dream but the "replaying" of an old memory from when I was maybe 2, 3 or 4 years old of something that happened while I was on a vacation with my family. I forgot about that also mostly due to the great numbers of dreams that were not mine and that I did not want and don't claim and decidedly do not want to keep.

It is a weird apology that says "sorry, I was doing what I was supposed to be doing" and involves non-linear time. Should I leave it here? Would you accept it? If not, any idea what I should do with it? (also, does it bother you that I deleted the bot note?) -- carol (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

language problems[edit]

There are two Aussies that prefer to be easily offended, erasing what is written until it is predictably rude and then bitching (not really female dog like, dogs are usually more intelligent and easier to work with than all of that; I don't know a more appropriate word for it though) complaining about it -- weird how that doesn't match the popular culture version of the species but that is how things go.

I am here about one of those users. Could you explain using whatever language that is effective and functional to User:Geo Swan that there are original versions of all of the Blanco images here already and that reverting a retouched version of any of these images without looking at the information template, where it should be easy for even a slightly below average intellect user to see.

Thank you in advance for this. -- carol (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Basella_rubra_Blanco1.74.png#filehistory. Sorry. I am getting the latin name mixed up with the common name. I am sorry to have bothered you. -- carol (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

Would you mind moving File:Giorgiana Molloy.jpg to File:Georgiana Molloy.jpg, please. Cheers. Djanga (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving was buggy, and has been turned off. It will need to be uploaded in the usual way. Hesperian 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If allowed, you may as well delete it. Its unused and is only a cropped version of File:Georgiana Molloy 2.jpg. Djanga (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Good; I was a bit worried about that one. It is likely that the book cover designer would have creatively manipulated the public domain image (e.g. those are very rich sepia tones). Happy to see it deleted. Done. Hesperian 05:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why removing {{badname|Image:Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg}}?[edit]

I have seen that you removed {{badname|Image:Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg}} see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ravenala_madagascariensis_C.jpg&action=history. The message says "Dit bestand heeft een verkeerde naam. Er bestaat een duplicaat met de juiste naam als: Image:Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg". Somewhat further is also mentioned in red: File:Image:Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg. The right name Image:Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg gives the right link. Why the template gives also File:Image:Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg I don't know. Could you please tell me what to do to have File:Ravenala madagascariensis C.jpg removed? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You should have put {{badname|Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg}} not {{badname|Image:Strelitzia nicolai A.jpg}}. I saw the redlink and thought the other file didn't exist. I have deleted it now. Hesperian 07:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I had my info from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk/Archives/2008Jan#change_title_of_image. I tried to find the syntax to be used at the template badname but there it is nothing mentioned in the Dutch version. I found that the english version explains it right. Regards, Wouter (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Superseding is not allowed[edit]

You superseded File:Wappen burg.jpg. Superseding is not allowed. Please recover any files you speedy deleted. Multichill (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Hesperian!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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 05:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Corymbia calophylla kino.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)