Did you know...
Re: Copyright question "7_chakras.jpg" in article "Chakras - Number of Petals"
I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Photo usage: After reading through the various licenses, we wanted to make certain that we were using one of your photos in a correct manner. We would like to use your Mount Rainier photo on a webpage about Mount Rainier, as well as on commercial product. Is that an appropriate use of the photo?
- Yes, as long as you follow the provisions of the license of your choice, e.g., w:GNU Free Documentation License or creative commons. If you incorporate my image into your work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license. If you would like to discuss other terms, you may contact me at Special:EmailUser/Wsiegmund. Thank you for your interest. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
categorization of templated taxonomy categories
This is all done via templates.
Your time is more valuable than this.
If you feel that this is the correct way to categorize taxonomy things, then there should be some agreement made for it.
There has been a discussion at User_talk:Rocket000#Templates_request.
I am quite serious when I suggest that your time is better spent. Perhaps you could consider undoing whatever categorization like this that you have added to templated pages and maybe consider instead adding the templates to the categories instead.
Management via templates is what software does best. Mundane and redundant tasks. Not good for people with functioning brains and the potential to make good things.
On a personal note, sometimes things seem obvious to me. Respect of work that has been accomplished previously. Respect of knowledge and an attempt towards communication based on understanding, not on demanding. That in a bag of potatoe chips, the big chips are found on the top and the little pieces make their way quickly to the bottom. Things like this are obvious to me and occasionally, when the obvious seems to be overlooked, perhaps I become "difficult to work with". I am not certain as I hear or read the implications of this but have not too many actual unresolved circumstances to support it. Obvious things though, that is where (perhaps) I am difficult to communicate with.
I am needing to restore some previously moved categories (researched to be shared names by ToL in the past). That is an unresolved problem I created and need to uncreate or clean-up. When it is cleaned up, they will get a clean up and be all the same. Some were (plant) and others were (genus). After I restore them, they shall be all "name (family)" and the templates, once made, all manage this very well also. -- carol (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry. I forgot that the template added the cat and will try to remember that in the future. No disrespect of the work of others was intended. I'll check my other edits. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Placing the template onto either the genus categories or the species categories was not so easy. I found not too many but enough mis-spelled species galleries and then there is the problem of old botanical illustrations of plants whose names have changed and also the problem of the online information not always agreeing with the other deliverers of online information about the same things (the existence of genera and such). Putting the template onto the genera and species categories (and galleries) could seem to be mundane if you are only looking at what happened here.
- Mis-spelling species names is easy. (two ii or one sometimes, latin and its embedded gender, latinized asian names!!!, etc.) I make no claim to have not done this and not known of it. That being said, almost every mis-spelled species gallery I found was created by the same user. Chances for an individual user making a mistake like this go up for the more that the individual user creates. That would make the chances for my work to contain errors.
- The errors I have found, however, were not from trying to find mistakes that were made by an individual user. I found them while trying not to make mistakes myself. I found them while trying to make the whole structure to be correct.
- I mention all of this now because I am not wanting to "point a finger" cruelly at the individual user who I found had made a lot of spelling errors here yet still suggest that this would be a good list of edits to look at and research to see if mistakes have been made. Also, to have the edits/work of one person checked is, in my experience, terrible and unproductive for whatever the larger goal is. Personal experience was where I was being investigated deeply at a commercial establishment while decoration and such were left in place displaying a wrong goal of the investigators. The health of the commercial establishment suffered greatly. The self-appointed investigators could have just as easily looked at themselves to find what they were looking for.
- So, I talk paged myself out of suggesting that an individuals edit history be checked for errors. Thank you for your kind and approachable past that allowed me such logic building.
- If you are interested in one family or area of the botany taxonomy that is in need of a template, let me know. Perhaps it is time to tackle the orchids -- the monocots are an area that I was not wanting to expand into yet. But, perhaps, with Orchi already knowing the shared genera names, it would be a good template to show how to make these things and a good way to start to agree on how they should work.
- Your note prompted me to add the generation of the [Family] species tags to the script I use to generate species gallery and category pages. I photograph species that are indigenous to the Pacific Northwest (User:Wsiegmund/species); Liliaceae, Polygonaceae, Brassicaceae, Saxifragaceae, and Rosaceae are well-represented in the region. I see that you've made [Family] species templates for several of these. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is a huge collection! What would have been really nice is if the templates had been available before that collection became so great. I am recently beginning to actually understand the word herbarium (my brain wants this word to be either a building or a scrapbook, not both and definitely not everything in between like dedicated cabinets and gardens, but I am getting used to this application of the word) and you have an excellent one.
- The commons collection is starting to be a great herbarium. I like that the wiki makes it easy to show historical classifications which is unusual for such collections. Ultimately, once there is a stable category tree in place (I don't mind empty categories for several reasons, one is having a place already available for easier upload and another is that the number of genera/families and whatever can be displayed and that should be helpful for repairing mistakes and for other database like things. Once the stable category tree is, eh, stable, then more time is available for people who are honestly interested enough to make great galleries for those species/genera that interest them.
- With a few very notable exceptions, the gallery only requirement gives the appearance of people doing the minimum amount of work which perhaps tends to happen when there are too many requirements for volunteers. That is my history reconstructionist take on what I saw. Even when there is intentional vandalism (putting wrong images into categories to show how easy it is to do) I honestly think that most people uploading images here will just upload images here and not purposefully vandalize, especially if it is easy and they are not harassed. -- carol (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:River of Life 07313.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 file, 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.