User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2009/7

Oaks

With 4 edits (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Oaks&diff=22988311&oldid=22746568) I almost completely reverted your edit. I doubt you can give a good reason to revert even one of them. On the other hand, you are a USian, that is a nuclear terrorist. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a good faith edit wherein I intended only to add the "See also" per Tony Wills and to add the VN tag with the various extant translations.[[1]] My guess is that I started from an earlier version by mistake. Thank you for correcting my error. Please consider striking your last sentence; it is not pertinent to our discussion and could be seen as a personal attack. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. On the other hand, the genocides by the USA are pertinent to the discussion. Once the USA accepts international jurisdiction, and stops committing war crimes, others will less often mention those war crimes. To use Xian terms: mote, beam. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I favor the prosecution of all war criminals, regardless of nationality. I oppose genocide. I would like to see the USA join the International Criminal Court along with Russia, China and India. I'm dubious of the relevance of my opinion to categorization of Commons (or to the policies of the US government, for that matter). Thank you for striking your comment above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an excuse for my behaviour, but I hope it will help you to somehow understand why I behaved like I did.

23 March I asked on Category talk:Quercus what would be a good name for a taxonomic subcategory, I waited 3 moons, created Category:Oaks by taxonomy and added only the few "cross" species to it on 22 June. On 24 June I moved the species named a* and b*, 25 June (UTC, still 24 June in your timezone) MPF undid my edits almost without comment (only "Incorrectly named: duplicates cat:Quercus" is somewhat clear). I intended and asked why they did those edits, but saw they are an administrator, so I shortened it to "But then again, you are an administrator".

After that, I changed category:Oaks, you asked me why, moved the discussion to Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. From my point of view your edit was yet another revert, and again without an explanation. Erik Warmelink (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain what happened from your perspective and I hope we can avoid misunderstandings in the future. I read your comment at Category_talk:Quercus just now. I'm sorry I didn't look for it earlier. I read it carefully just now, but I don't understand how it relates to our current discussion.

I'm curious about your edit to Category:Lithocarpus, however.[2] It does not appear to be in the spirit of Tony Wills' thoughts on this matter.[3]. Tony says "An obvious example is category:Dogs which is in no way synonymous with category:Canis lupus and has lots of other aspects of dogs that biology has no interest in (eg category:Famous dogs)." Your edit appears to duplicate Category:Quercus. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On Category talk:Quercus: well, you asked a question 3 months later; my edit had "Category:Quercus is occupied by wikispecies" as an edit summary, which might have lead you to its talk page (Category talk:Quercus). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On Category:Lithocarpus: I did almost the same to Category:Cyclobalanopsis (edit 23083672) and for similar reasons; Lithocarpus and Cyclobalanopsis may not be Quercus (but see e.g. de:Lithocarpus blumeanus#Systematik, even taxonomist were undecided less than a centry ago), but lots of people will call them oak/eik/Eiche/Eg &c.. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bromine

Hello,

is it still your opinion here: Bromine? Thanks and best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I will participate further. It strikes me as uncollegial to upload and nominate your image thereby denying Jurii VI recognition. It may have been better to have waited until the Jurii nomination had been decided. That result would not have jeopardized the changes of your picture being recognized similarly. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand and I accept your opinion. Jurii was a bit faster with his image and his VI nomination. But a most valued review was your proposal ;-) Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pic

That is one freaky Sorbus lol - File:Sorbus sitchensis 9964.JPG . Stan Shebs (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I'm pleased to provide the entertainment, this morning. I will fix it. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with BRONSON77

Dear Walter, Thank you for your comment. I am not speaking about his/her general talk page. I am specifically denouncing the justification that he/she used for the removal of Dr. Martinez-Frias. He/she indicates in the first sentence that Dr. Jesus Martinez Frias "has not relevance for being included", and this, in my opinion, is not true, it is very subjective and a clear judge of value. It is also very suspicious that many of his/her wiki-contributions are about geology in Spain and, in particular, meteorites: one of the topics in which Dr. Martinez Frias is researching. Don't you think?--80.58.205.45 23:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. As Túrelio says, this is not the place to bring a content dispute on eswiki. Please discuss the matter on the article talk page.[4] Since you brought this user to our attention, I reviewed his/her contributions to Commons, but that is all I can do. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Walter,

Thank you very much! Following the Túrelio's indications I have contacted BRONSON77 indicating this point and I have also informed Túrelio about it.

In my new post to BRONSON77 I have given two external links:

1) an official NASA website: http://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/s-jmfrias.html which includes a brief biographical information of Dr. Jesus Martinez Frias, and

2) an official Spanish website (exit directory of scientific information): http://www.directorioexit.info/consulta.php?directorio=exit&campo=ID&texto=1387 which includes further data about the researcher evidencing, in my opinion, the scientific impact of his work and publications.

I hope this information is enough to re-incorporate Dr. Martinez Frias into the list of renowned Spanish geologists, linking his name to some of the external urls. Please note that some other Spanish geologists also appear in the list, without any hyperlink or information, and curiously they were not removed by BRONSON77. Thank you again. --130.206.92.101 09:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is a sock

User:Muntuwandi is a sock of User:Wapondaponda evidence 1. They are convicted sock puppets on English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AWapondaponda 2. They uploaded the exact same map with the same name http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Haplogroup_E.png on commons The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)