User talk:Singinglemon

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Singinglemon!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Victuallers (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Gioacchino_Assereto_-_Diogene_ed_Alessandro.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.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Gioacchino_Assereto_-_Diogene_ed_Alessandro.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there, I've given the source for the image. It's from www.bildindex.de. I can't link to the actual file, because it a flash application. Just stick the word "Assereto" in the search box and the image is there. What else can I do? Singinglemon (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 2ac5ca6d0bccd134788d34a1ec269712[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Links[edit]


Little problem[edit]

Your description:

English: The New Forest Pony is one of the recognised Mountain and moorland or Native pony breeds of the British Isles. They are owned by the commoners (local people with common grazing rights), and looked after by their owners and by the Agisters, employees of the Verderers of the New Forest. New Forest Ponies are most commonly bay, chestnut or grey, but may be any colour except piebald, skewbald or cremello.

The problem is: Not all New Forest Ponies are in the New Forest and owned by these people and not all Horses in New Forest are New Forest Ponies. Kersti (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I copied the description in free roaming ponies in New Forest and addet there a bit information. In New Forest Pony I replaced the part, wich ist not correct there. --Kersti (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That's fine - it was simply a naive mistake on my part. I just copied a few random lines from the New Forest pony Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia entry makes no mention of New Forest ponies else where, which is why my silly mistake arose. Singinglemon (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In Germany there are bred New Forest Ponies[1]. I am shure ist is not the onnly place outside of the New Forest. Kersti (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, "Das New Forest Pony." I notice also that the French wikipedia article: New forest has sections on ponies "En France" and "En Amérique du Nord." Good to know that all those little brown ponies I've been seeing all my life are so valued elsewhere! Singinglemon (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

about gorgias[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for telling me the truth. I have mistaken Gorgias with Plato and I don't have permission either. Maybe you could just erase the picture from commons. Thank you again.

Regards 55hans (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes & Epigrams[edit]

Deletion discussion at Wikisource:Anecdotes & Epigrams. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty dull thing to be discussing. Singinglemon (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You did a bit of work on the items, is there anything you want to save that you have not already copied? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Moved to WQ, see q:Talk:Diogenes of Sinope. Jeepday (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lymington[edit]

Hi,

I've reverted your addition of Category:Lymington to Category:Towns and villages in the New Forest. The reason is "the New Forest" means, well, the New Forest (best defined by the National Park boundary?), and not New Forest district. Lymington is in the district, but its not in the National Park. The WP article mentions it is near to the New Forest, but not in it.

The same likely applies to other settlements in the district - Ringwood, Milford and Milford on Sea for instance. Likewise some settlements in the New Forest aren't in New Forest district, Category:Nomansland, Wiltshire isn't even in Hampshire (but is misplaced in Category:Towns and villages in Hampshire as a result of the New Forest cat. This all means there is a distinction between the forest and the district - some belong in both, but some belong in one or the other only.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is confusing, and is partially a limitation of MediaWiki categories. It also reflects the poor state of the category tree in some places. In this case there are 2 concepts ("Lymington" and "New Forest") each with multiple definitions.
What is Category:Lymington actually about? Is it the settlement itself or the civil parish that contains it? My opinion is it should be about the town itself, and should be contained in Category:Lymington and Pennington (about the parish).
The town is outside the National Park, but the parish does include areas in the park. Therefore to me that suggests in any form, "Lymington" should not be in "towns and villages in the New Forest". However, "Lymington" in "civil parishes in the New Forest" would be reasonable (or better "Lymington and Pennington"). A reasonable end state would be to have Category:Lymington and Pennington in Category:Civil parishes in New Forest district and Category:Civil parishes in the New Forest, while Category:Lymington is in Category:Lymington and Pennington and Category:Towns and villages in New Forest district. The same approach could be utilised for others, eg with Category:Ringwood and Category:Ringwood (parish) for the 2 distinct concepts.
My inclination for equating "the New Forest" with "New Forest National Park" - as opposed to strictly the Royal Forest - is based on the situation for Dartmoor and Exmoor. The everyday "folk" definition of the moors always roughly corresponded with "the Royal Forest and its purlieus", never "the Royal Forest only". This was the concept those National Parks were drawn on, meaning equating the moor with the National Park is reasonable (especially with the c 50 years that they have existed for). The New Forest is different of course and I'm not sure if the New Forest is commonly understood to be "the Royal Forest only", or "the Royal Forest plus purlieus". The boundaries are also relatively recent, and look more artificial at present (esp Fawley Power Station), but the artificial oddities for the two moors (such the A-roads being boundaries) are accepted in everyday usage now.
Incidentally, there's more than just 3 definitions of the New Forest. For example, the Natural England definition of the New Forest Natural Area includes much of the district of Christchurch. I'm sure you could find dozens of definitions from lots of reliable sources.
There's no harm with parallel category trees, you could have categories for X in the county, X in the District, X in the National Park and X in the Royal Forest if you wanted. At most 2 of those would be on a given file/category (as anything in the district/Royal Forest is necessarily in the county/National Park). I think both an administrative tree, and one relating to the geographic area are useful, so at minimum - X in county and X in National Park.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, Thanks for your advice. I've now limited Category:Towns and villages in the New Forest to just towns and villages (and hamlets) within the National park boundaries. I've made a start on populating Category:Civil parishes in Hampshire, so far only with the New Forest parishes. I'm not going to worry about creating other subcategories right now - I've got my work cut out trying to fix the horrendous mess BotMultichillT makes categorising these files. :) Singinglemon (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I know the feeling here. I think the civil parish should probably be split from its namesake town/village (as they are typically distinct concepts), but that's way too much like hard work. I think that's an eventualist goal, but no real practical benefit. Nevermind the thousands of Geograph images with dodgy categorisation :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Theophrastus[edit]

I would like to use this image in a publication, "Truffle: A Global History". I would like to credit the photgrapher. Please drop me an email at z DOT nowak AT greendoor DT it

Thanks Zach Nowak