User talk:Rkitko/archive1

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

Hi Ryan; I wonder if you would be kind enough to add a source for your edit to Image:QuinaltSpruce 7246c.jpg (world's largest, not third), please? Van Pelt does not serve since it is the source of the 3rd largest information. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 15:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Sure--I recently visited the Quinault rainforest and there was a plaque next to the tree (which I realized could be outdated or placed by someone proud of local features), so I dug deeper. The information seems to come from here (pdf) which is on the website. If you look at the bottom of the pdf, the source appears to be: "American Forests, National Register of Big Trees; Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast, Robert Van Pelt; and British Columbia Register of Big Trees. I haven't read the Van Pelt source, but perhaps some wires got crossed: "It is also the state's third largest tree." Perhaps that's where the "third largest" came from? Additionally, take a look at the website (you can search the register of big trees). Looks like the Sitka Spruce in question still has the most AFA points out of any other spruce tree. That generally makes it the one with the largest wood volume, though other trees may be taller--that doesn't make them larger, though. Let me know what you think and I can add one of these sources to the page. Take care, Rkitko 17:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Peter iredale sunset edited1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Peter iredale sunset edited1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Peter iredale sunset edited1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


--Simonizer 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Image deletion warning Image:Technosphere1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

(fixed an old request)--Deadstar 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad news[edit]

Sorry Rkitko, but I have to do that, though I regret it:

Pay attention to copyright Image:Oreostylidium from Mildbraed.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Denis Barthel 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Janis Ian[edit]

Hi, Rkitko! Could you help me understand how this works? Specifically Image:Janis_Ian.jpg, which I uploaded. I sent an email requesting permission from the copyright holder, received it, and sent both emails to Is there something else I need to do? Thanks in advance for any help you can give! -- SatyrTN 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Crassula capitella 2 edit.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Crassula capitella 2 edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Crassula capitella 2 edit.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


--Simonizer 16:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


The author name for Kleinia Implexia was as, for lack of a different word, interesting as Hooker & Arnot.... -- carol (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Rkitko,

would you be so kind to tell me, what systematic you used for your decision to move Donatia in a family of its own? Usually it is treated as a part of the Stylidiaceae, and even APGII seems not to be fully convinced. Newer studies seem to unifie them again.

Stylidiaceae and Donatiaceae have often been associated, e.g. as weakly supported sister taxa (D. Soltis et al. 2000) or quite strongly linked (Kårehed et al. 2000; Lundberg 2001). In some studies Donatiaceae are sister to Abrophyllum (Carpodetaceae: Gustafsson et al. 1997), not to Stylidiaceae. They have been treated as two families in Stylidiales (Takhtajan 1997) or merged in one family (Philipson & Philipson 1973). A.P.G. II suggests as an option keeping Donatiaceae and Stylidiaceae separate, although the two can reasonably be combined (e.g. Lundberg & Bremer 2003). ([1]).

Maybe you might to think of it again?

Best regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Denis. This information comes via Juliet Wege, the expert in Stylidiaceae working on a taxonomic revision for the Flora of Australia series. She recently wrote the section in Heywood, V. H., Brummitt, R. K., Culham, A., and Seberg, O. (2007). Flowering Plant Families of the World. Firefly Books. In it she states:
"A sister group relationship with Donatiaceae is well supported." And she cites Lundberg, J. and Bremer, K. (2003). A phylogenetic study of the order Asterales using one morphological and three molecular data sets. Int. J. Plant Sci., 164: 553-578.
In the same book under the Donatiaceae heading, it is stated, "Reuniting these 2 families as recently suggested would unnecessarily deprive Stylidiaceae of its defining synapomorphies." It's never really been settled since 1911 when Donatiaceae was really first described and separated from Stylidiaceae. Good (1925) also segregated Donatia out from his discussions of Stylidiaceae. Another paper that used phylogenetic analysis to determine the sister-group status is: Laurent, N., Bremer, B., and Bremer, K. (1999). Phylogeny and generic interrelationships of the Stylidiaceae (Asterales), with a possible extreme case of floral paedomorphosis. Systematic Botany, 23(3): 289-304. Regardless, you're right that APGII recommends for inclusion in Stylidiaceae but allows for the optional recognition of Donatiaceae. I'm more inclined to follow the Wege's opinion on this, though, as she studies these plants more closely than APGII. Thoughts? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. My only problem is, that this view currently is still rather uncommon. I guess, one should work this out in the Wikipedias, but I am not sure, if the "bleeding edge" of research is the right criteria to sort plants in the commons. Maybe you should at least add a note in the Stylidiaceae-page, that Donatia can be found in a family of its own. Not all users on the wikiprojects throughout the world might be aware of this new development and may believe, that there are no files of Donatia available. Would like to have you in the German Wikipedia anyhow :) . Best regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That paper!![edit]

I am interested in that paper!! See the interesting administrative soup loop I am in a English wikipedia User_talk:LX#Serious_questions_about_administrative_goals_here_and_elsewhere and I don't like taking up that users time with this kind of incredible silliness. -- carol (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

grr an R[edit]

With the two strylidium Stylidium images I'll re upload with the right name. Gnangarra 12:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ok all done, delted the stryxxx named ones and reuploaded then placed them back into the galleries and deleted the categories with my spelling errors. Gnangarra 13:18, 11 September 2008 (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 | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Rkitko!

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:


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]]

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").

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 06:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Help?[edit]

Are you asking me to delete the dodgy file revisions? (I'm happy to do so; I'm just not sure that's what you want.) I think I can do what you want too.

It isn't your fault: see here Hesperian 11:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've just experienced what I assume is the same Inkscape bug as you. You drew a rectangle that you wanted to be the page extents, selected it, and clicked "Fit page to selection", right? And instead of fitting the page to the selection, it resized both image and page, right? Well, that's what was happening to me, anyhow. The problem was the svg file had a viewBox attribute, which Inkscape was mishandling. I used the XML editor to delete that attribute, and everything appeared to go smoothly thereafter. I'll upload it shortly. (And still happy to delete the other file revisions, if you want) Hesperian 12:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The suspense was killing me, so I went ahead and deleted all but your first upload and the revert, thus cleaning up the mess without interfering in the narrative. Happy with that? Hesperian 12:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks! You should have seen me swearing at the computer last night when running into that bug. From what I was reading, the "fit page to selection" item usually only works when there's just one layer. I think I'll uninstall Inkscape and stick to Photoshop :-) Thanks again Rkitko (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


....only a little info: [2]. Orchi (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The experts I turn to have not accepted this synonymization: [3], [4], [5]. Rkitko (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)