Jump to content

User talk:Innotata/Archive14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

[edit]

Welcome to MILHIST

[edit]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crossley images

[edit]
The above message is not entirely relevant, since it's about adding information. The images from the Crossley Guide should be very useful, but we need evidence they are under the given licenses, as I've explained on your Wikimedia Commons page. I don't think there's a solid rule you can't add them, but it's good to avoid promotion. I'd suggest you not add these images to articles, and let them be added by others: they will be noticed, and I can look through them and see if any are useful.
I have an additional concern. The English Wikipedia only allows individuals to have an account. You can edit Wikipedia as a Princeton University Press employee, but you need to use a personal account. If this is not a personal account it will need to be blocked (or made into one and renamed). Please take a look at the link. Thanks, —innotata 20:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


This is my personal account and I'm getting the license information for you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetonnature (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! For the username issue, do you want to make it clear it's one person's account but you are a Princeton Press employee, on your user page, so that people don't get confused? —innotata 16:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want to send the email about this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the next few days, so the images don't get deleted. —innotata 16:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do regarding the user name. Trying to figure out how to do that exactly.

And I sent the email to the address you requested yesterday.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetonnature (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your page looks good. —innotata 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Innotata: Richard is a good friend of mine, so I've called him tonight to see if he has actually given permission for these plates to be made universally available; left a message on his machine, and will let you know the result. Gotta say, my gut instinct is no way did he do so! MeegsC (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think so, but Princetonnature is a Princeton University Press employee, confirmed to me by email and to OTRS; I haven't asked if Mr Crossley has given permission personally, also maybe the publisher has the right to. —innotata 02:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I saw Richard today, and he says he did indeed give his permission for any and all plates from his books to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Go figure!  :) Presumably, the PUP employee will continue to upload them. MeegsC (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

[edit]

May 2013

[edit]

Great American Wiknic for Minnesota in June

[edit]

Howdy! I would like to invite you to again join with a local edition of the Great American Wiknic this June :) Also, please add any preliminary details to Wikipedia:Wiknic#2013 Wiknic.--Pharos (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

[edit]

Thanks for helping with Richard Crossley images

[edit]

Hi,

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for helping me a few weeks ago.

I'm happy to report that the Commons finally granted me permission for these images. I will be uploading over 800 images of Richard's into the commons. I think they will be a valuable addition to help capture the beauty of these wonderful species,

Thanks again,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetonnature (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great that Mr Crossley has released so many, and you'll keep uploading them. I'm glad I helped ensure you weren't turned away from getting these up. I'm sure we'll find uses for some of them, as at field guide (the only image is one) and especially once rarer species' images get uploaded. —innotata 17:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, over 700 species accounts are up and the OTRS team has been helpful in assigning permission to each to prevent them from being deleted. Thanks again! I hope the editors can find them helpful--especially for the rarer ones as you mention,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetonnature (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

[edit]

Dambo Cisticola or Cisticola Dambo?

[edit]

Hi Innodata, Can you look into this? Are the English and Latin in reverse order? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambo_Cisticola Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is correct. The genus name is Cisticola and the species name is dambo, so the Latin name is Cisticola dambo, wheras English puts these things in the reverse order, hence the common name. —innotata 21:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deutschlandlied

[edit]

Greets. Thank you for the welcome and you claimed you made it so "The song of the Germans" and "Song of the Germans" would redirect to Deutschlandlied but I tested it and it didn't work?? Anyways, thanks. JohnnyR997 (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It worked, never mind.

[edit]

So sorry! It actually does work, and thank you for doing that.JohnnyR997 (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

[edit]

May 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of Minnesota may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

[edit]
[edit]
Sorry to disrupt you while working on cleaning up Celeste Buckingham photos. I've been working on transferring a whole bunch of them to Commons over the last couple of nights, and because I had a CC license with a link to Lukáš Dvořák's Wikipedia article open in another tab I thought I'd make the small improvement to the images you transfered while I was at it. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for all your hard work and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to know you're transferring the images. As far as clean-up goes: Not sure what you're trying to say, but you shouldn't include links to Wikipedia articles in recommended attributions—they aren't official websites or otherwise linked to the author. OTRS ticket links are not copyright statuses, so they belong in the permission field, not the license section. —innotata 03:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up on not linking to Wikipedia articles in license templates: I'll go back and remove the links to Lukáš Dvořák from the licenses on all of his photographs on Commons. Regarding the issue of where to put the OTRS tickets, I checked the template page itself on Commons ({{PermissionOTRS}}), and according to it both the permission field and the license section are equally acceptable (I had thought that the license section was preferred, so I stand corrected on that point, but there is nothing improper with putting an OTRS ticket link in the license section). Going forward, I will refrain from moving the OTRS ticket link from the permission field to the licensing section, but I myself will continue placing it in the licensing section on files that I transfer. Thanks again, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicollet Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cedar Lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

[edit]

Spizella passerina

[edit]

Dear Innotata,

Thank you for your wise editings. I have modified Spizella passerina explaining that it does not belong to Old World Sparrows radiation. However, if you think that it should be as you proposed, please go ahead and change it.

Regards JavierAlonso (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's best you not add text that's so incoherent in English. The information in Allende et al. doesn't really belong in each American sparrow's page—it only discusses the relationships of the entire family, so the details belong at articles like American sparrow and Emberizidae. You could add the simple fact that American sparrows are not the closest relatives of Passeridae, but remember that all animals are related. —innotata 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will add "Chipping Sparrow is not phylogenetically related to Passeridae in our studies <ref>Allende, Luis M. (2001). "The Old World sparrows (genus Passer) phylogeography and their relative abundance of nuclear mtDNA pseudogenes" (PDF). Journal of Molecular Evolution. 53 (2): 144–154. PMID 11479685. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref>"

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierAlonso (talk • contribs) 10:40, 21 June 2013‎

Sorry, this is too meaningless, especially to those who don't know about systematics. What does "phylogenetically related" mean? Is it just the Chipping Sparrow that's unrelated to Passeridae? Also, don't say "our studies"—you and your colleagues aren't the sole authors of the article and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I've changed it to "The Chipping Sparrow is part of the family Emberizidae, and is not closely related to the Old World sparrows of the family Passeridae." —innotata 17:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your editing. Regards. JavierAlonso (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

[edit]

Re: File:Tamias striatus albino.jpg

[edit]

Hello, I think that this interesting file is a very good example of a leucic tamias striatus rather than albinos. The eyes remain pigmented as in leucism, while it would be red if it was albinism. Thank you for your implication. Laurent Bélanger (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, I don't know better than you. —innotata 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Goose

[edit]

Could you elaborate on "optimally compact"? I believe the one I added to be a better representation as the lighting seems better - the head and neck of the previous photo are very poorly lit and are not that distinguishable at it's current size. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have this one as well, by the way (just uploaded it) – Connormah (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're very tall, so the image is elongated; a compact, less vertical image is better for the top (and to fit with the standard taxobox width). The current image isn't significantly different in quality, there's not much detail gained.
Apart from the one you just uploaded, they're at bad angles for viewing the plumage. Additionally, they're facing right, and don't show the legs. You know, we have a lot of Canada Goose photos, so not all of them can be in the species article. —innotata 03:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, your photos probably are Giant Canadas, while the current one is a more typical bird. —innotata 03:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How large are the giant Canadas typically? I actually have no idea as I'm particularly new to birding. I just found the neck and head particularly dark on the current one - the eyes aren't noticeable and I feel a better lit photo would be better. I can also flip the one I just mentioned if needed. – Connormah (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They weigh almost twice as much as Easterns, and have a very different shape especially on the neck. I need to find detailed information on measurements.
My one issue is the excess verticality of the image, and in my opinion nothing makes up for that. There's practically no detail lost on the current one—not all geese have the white feathers around the eye and bill the one you photographed had. Apart from the head, the current one is good, look at the back for example. —innotata 03:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There a number of good images, a quick look turns up File:Fredenbaum-100719-15667-Kanadagans.jpg, which has a better lit head and is horizontal. —innotata 03:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could the second one be satisfactory (perhaps with a flip)? I just feel again the a more dynamically lit lead image is more beneficial for this particular species - from afar the current image doesn't really give indication of the positioning of the eyes and such IMO. And as for the eye - I'm not entirely sure what the white outlining is, but I don't think they are feathers, rather some kind of buildup of some sort. Strange. As for the other one you mentioned, that could work as well! (or I could go out again tomorrow and try to get some better shots...) – Connormah (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also have File:Branta canadensis - June 2013 (4).JPG – Connormah (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

[edit]

July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

[edit]

Mandarin Ducks are found in Nepal

[edit]

Hey, see List of birds of Nepal in Ducks, geese and swans section it's listed there too and it's found in Nepal too. I am from Nepal. -Krish Dulal (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not found anywhere near Nepal (unless they are kept in captivity as ornamental birds), see the IUCN Red List. You don't have any sources for this claim. —innotata 17:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out the list was not quite correct, they are only present as vagrants, so they do not belong in the "Birds of Nepal" category. —innotata 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was unknown to the fact. -Krish Dulal (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

[edit]

Geonotice

[edit]

Should be up now. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —innotata 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You decide :-)

[edit]

re [1], I think you are probably right, that photo of the sparrow is probably an immature bird, I was going to re-cat the pic but thought I would check the image's history first ... [2] it appears you are the one who decided it was a female specimen ! :-). Shall I leave you to recat the image? --Tony Wills (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was 2010, I probably hadn't read about the trouble with immatures and wasn't being very careful. I've removed it from the female category now. —innotata 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for that and the additions to the article, I wasn't aware how difficult it was to discriminate between the immature birds (I obviously don't take enough notice of sparrows!) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

[edit]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Innotata/Archive14&oldid=1168301846"