- 1 Angle Lake is not in Seattle
- 2 Image of yours used without attribution
- 3 File:E haplogroup.gif
- 4 testing using wikimedia
- 5 Merger proposal for Monotropa hypopitys and hypopithys
- 6 Re:Userboxes
- 7 Quercus chrysolepis
- 8 Changes to John Hill's Talk page
- 9 Valued Image Promotion
- 10 Valued Image Promotion
Angle Lake is not in Seattle
- Thank you for letting me know and for the cleanup. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Image of yours used without attribution
- It would be helpful if the description said how the illustration was adapted. It appears that you have traced the original or redrawn it. If so, it may not violate the copyright of the original since it is not an exact copy. I'm only one opinion and I'm not an expert in this area (I would probably not comment on COM:DR). You may wish to ask Abigor (talk · contribs) and/or Polarlys (talk · contribs). They deleted the two versions of File:Haplogroup E.png that you uploaded. You may wish to expand the description of the image. For graphics of this sort, my understanding is that .png is preferred over .gif. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have been away for a couple of days, but Abigor has deleted the image. I can provide a description. Just for the record, I put in several hours working on the image. Muntuwandi (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please use COM:UNDEL, if you would like the broader Commons community to review the deletion. Thank you, 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
testing using wikimedia
Thanks Walt, I think I now know how to use this, I will also try the email section.-Mac
- Splendid! Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a significant learning threshold that is a barrier to participation. You can sign automatically by ending your message with ~~~~ (four tildes). Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Merger proposal for Monotropa hypopitys and hypopithys
Hi. It seems we have two categories about the same plant. The question is, which spelling should we use?
|Category discussion notification||Category:Monotropa hypopithys has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
- I replied at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/08/Category:Monotropa hypopitys. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for stopping by to inform me of COM:BABEL as a good faith suggestion. However, I'm a little reluctant to place the template on my talk page because I'm not sure of measuring my language ability. If your message was related to the whole fiasco brought to the public spaces by Kwj2777, well I would say that most of Korean editors whom I encounter on Commons are all familiar faces on Korean Wikipedia and they know me. So I really don't think the need. I consider any discussion with admins should be accessible for everyone except Email discussions, so I think using English is to give a fair opportunity to all people since English is a lingua franca in Wiki projects.--Caspian blue 13:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry much about measuring language ability accurately; a rough idea is helpful. Babel boxes suggest that a user has an awareness of the multilingual nature of the project and a desire to communicate. I don't have an opinion on the Kwj2777 matter (and don't have time to look into it), but I often read COM:MELLOW when things are not going well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Changes to John Hill's Talk page
Hi! Thanks very much for the changes you have just done on my page - I am very happy with them, they make it easier for me to use now too.
On another subject, I am having a bit of trouble dealing with all the beautiful and detailed botanical illustrations of local orchids which my friend Lewis Roberts has allowed me to upload recently to Wikimedia Commons. I am not a botanist and have been having all sorts of difficulties as the small ground orchids Lewis mostly illustrates have been the subject of many taxonomical changes in recent times. Many have not only had species name changes but have been moved into new genera (and sometimes back again). I have been using as my guide the large and well-respected 2006 book by David L. Jones (see below) as my guide. Jones is generally accepted as Australia's leading taxonomist dealing with orchids. So, I have been uploading some of Lewis' images to the Wikipedia and trying to write short accounts based largely on Jones' book and whatever I can find that is pertinent on the internet.
However, some of Jones' more recent orchid names (including new names of genera) have not yet made it into the Royal Gardens of Kew's World Checklist of Names, and so this is leading to confusions and reversals of some of the work I have been doing. I really need some good advice on these rather technical taxonomic questions so I know what headings to put on images and articles.
User Orchi yesterday changed some of the names I had inserted back to the older ones on the Kew Gardens list. I wrote him a long letter asking for help - only to realise after I finished it that he has only a basic command of English. So, I wonder if I could ask you to kindly have a look at it (I will paste it in below) and either reply directly if you wish and feel confident to do so, or forward it on to some Administrator likely to have the background knowledge to give me some clear directions on what I should be doing? I would be very grateful for any suggestions or help as I am really out of my depth here. Many thanks, John E. Hill (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is the original letter I sent to User Orchi:
- Hi! Please be patient with me as I am not a botanist, nor am I sure of Wikipedia policy on botanical names. I notice this morning that you have reversed some names I entered recently for botanical illustrations by Lewis Roberts from Acianthella amplexicaulis to Acianthus amplexicaulis, and Cirrhopetalum gracillimum to Bulbophyllum gracillimum.
- Now, I know the names you have chosen are the ones listed on the Royal Gardens of Kew's World Checklist of Names. I have, however, (because there has been a lot of recent work by experts to revise the taxonomy of Australian orchids) been using the fine 2006 book by David L. Jones (who is considered here to be Australia's leading taxonomist of orchids), A complete Guide of Native Orchids of Australia Including the Island Territories. This is more up-to-date than Kew's list and is accepted here by botanists as the most recent and authoritative source for the names of Australian orchids.
- Have I been making a mistake using Jones' work? Perhaps it is Wikipedia policy to use the Kew list, but I can't seem to find any such policy. Please tell me if I am missing something obvious - but shouldn't we be accepting the latest classifications by the leading authority in this field? Many thanks for your help, Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)