User talk:Gnangarra/archive 2

Discussion archived from User talk:Gnangarra on September 14,2008

White Everlasting

Hi Gnang, I based the category on your image page ID of Helipterum floribundum DC, that particular species is now Rhodanthe floribunda, so I placed the image in the category Category:Rhodanthe, someone else had previously placed it in Category:Syncarpha, which is the genus that South African species in the genus Helipterum were transferred to. If the seeds were just labelled "White Everlasting" with no further details, they could be a number of different species - if collected locally to you they could be a white form of Rhodanthe chlorocepha subsp. rosea [1] --Melburnian 06:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Peanuts

Dear Gnangarra. A oppose vote (or some) doesn't mean that the picture is ugly or not valueful. Your picture on the FP list is a very beautiful picture but it seems it has some technical weakenings. To send a deletion request is a wrong and emotional signal in my eyes. At the FP list you have the great chance to learn and improve your photographer skills and everybody is helping you as good as they can. Imagine a poll where nobody takes a note of your picture ... that would be very frustrating and in that case I would send a deletion request to delete myself :) So please delete that request and surprise our nice community with another beautiful picture by your great gallery. Best regards --Richard Bartz 15:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Red tailed boa

Hi. I'm sorry you feel that strongly about my comment. I may have been a bit harsh. Insufficient focus might've been better. Not all pictures have to become QI or FP to be valuable. More than 80% of my own pictures (which I keep on posting regardless) will never reach QI or FP. It doesn't bother me too much. Regards. Lycaon 12:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates#POTY__-_QI_involvement

Hi Gnangarra,

I'm not sure how much time you spend on Commons or QI these days, but your comments would be welcome. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have any input on these items that would be great. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Swan River Map.png

I created this with a white background, licenced it under the GFDL, and uploaded it to Wikipedia. You then gave it its background colours, and added some more labels. Someone uploaded it here without attributing a share of authorship to you, a violation of the GFDL. I have fixed that now. I would like to release it under cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 as well. Will you agree to that? Hesperian 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

thats fine Gnangarra 13:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

heads up

I have an idea this discussion is of interest to you, although I may be wrong: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Does removing the copyright status from the EXIF violates the GFDL ? (I suspect the poster might correct the title, in which case this link will be broken, but you get the idea). Hesperian 10:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

...original metadata must be retained and be included with further copies

Doesn't that prevent people from modifying the file however they like? That seems a little more restrictive than CC-BY. I'm not sure you can place restrictions on top of CC licenses; if you can, then anything could potentially be CC and Commons would have a huge problem. May I ask what's your reasoning for this? Does this pertain to derivatives too? Rocket000 11:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

as per this discussion retention of Meta/EXIF information is a requirement of GFDL as it includes licensing text, CC-by addresses attribution when using the image or varients as this doesnt preclude anyone editing the image or using only a portion of the image it just specifies what GFDL already requires. I specifically excluded Wikimedia projects so as to comply with our current thumbnail process that strips it away. IMHO this isnt watermarking an image as the information isnt visable and doesnt appear in any printing unless specified Gnangarra 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I didn't say it was like watermarking it just makes the whole legal situation on Commons a little more complicated for users. I don't think metadata is a requirement of the GFDL. It doesn't contain everything that's required anyway (like the history). What if I don't include any in the first place? But that's besides the point; even if it did require it, why point it out again? A link to the license is enough for everyone else. If someone removes it (like MediaWiki), they're in violation of the GFDL, not you. So I guess my question is why do you add this part to your images when it really applies to all our images released under the GFDL. Also, since your images are dual licensed, this restriction doesn't apply if the user chooses CC-BY. Isn't that somewhat misleading?

This subject greatly interests me; that's why I'm asking you about it. I'm not trying to get you to change it or anything. I'm just curious. Thanks. Rocket000 16:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What if the copy or derivative isn't digital? How can the metadata be retained?

That ok I spent ages looking into CC-by and GFDL reading Australian legislation, US Legislation CC-by website, and Autralian copyright councils guides to using the licenses, its from that I chose to specifically highlight it because Wikimedia software excludes it in thumb nails and in doing so I provide an exemption that permits this to occur. If someone prints the image they arent storing it for later use therfore it doesnt apply. Gnangarra 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Seeing how all these different licenses coexist with each other and learning how others respond and deal with the legal issues is all very interesting. It'll be neat to see how this goes down.

You take some great photos, BTW. And I know it's a little premature, but congratulations on your adminship. ;) Rocket000 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Gnangarra, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to Commons:List_of_administrators and the related lists by language and date it references...

EugeneZelenko 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Go the cabal! :) — Giggy 23:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Good on ya mate. Hesperian 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Gnang! I'm so glad to hear that you were passed your RfA so well. They're very lucky to have you on their admin team. All the best with your Commons adminship, Gnang. :) Sarah Ewart 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From me too. Well done. Moondyne 10:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed the whole show, but the result was good - congratulations!--Melburnian 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your first challenge

Can you please speedily delete Image:Be not a part.svg? Its sole purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia.[2]. Hesperian 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust

Thank you for exhibiting trust in me in my recent request. I will do my best to continue to act in a way that will benefit the commons and the commons community. -- Avi 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality image

Hi, I don't know that QI are only for self made image i thought that is a sort of FP with less requirement... Of course i don't know this because i did not read the guidelines XD Sorry for bothering and thank you! Regards Jacopo 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can you delete Image:History of West Australia p11a.jpg please. Its a duplicate of Image:History of West Australia p11.jpg and is unneeded. Moondyne 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

tis done, though its ever so obvious with the red link above Gnangarra 17:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And also Image:WA_Elections_1890-2005.gif, per duplication of Image:WA_Elections_1890-2005.png Orderinchaos78 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

tis done Gnangarra 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!

I noticed that there was additional help today with QIBot droppings and I thought, gee, isn't that nice.

Then, on another wiki, I discovered that it might not have been so nice -- that this person is one of them them in this case being major E&CAs! Such major versions of them that I haven't seen the descending part of the C in such need of a capital D in a very long time.

Where do I go from here!!!!? -- carol 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps just as well that most of that message is incomprehensible, but in case you (Carol) did not know, Gnangarra was one of the people who set up QI :-) --Tony Wills 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganise QI sub-gallery concept?

see Commons_talk:Quality_Images#What_is_the_purpose_of_these_galleries.3F --Tony Wills 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at my new post

here.

The user has robbed again the images and uploaded them (sorry for my english).

Please erase them and block the user.

Thanks.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fuel tank gnangarra.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

User page

I was going to get to it sooner or later, but it seems my work is done. Thanks! :) Nishkid64 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Por tercera vez vuelve a subir imaganes "robadas"

Luego de realizadas estas denuncias here y here y de ser advertido y amenazado con ser bloqueado here, el usuario ha vuelto a subir otra ver imaganes robadas: aqui la imagen y aqui la fuente.

Solicito por favor de una vez por todas se bloquee al usuario en cuestion, ya que es la tercera vez que postea imagenes robadas sin hacer caso a las advertencias.

Atte.

Santiago

Not convinced on this one the site you say it came from doesnt have the image, other details are consistant with self made images Gnangarra 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Francisco Pelsart.jpg

Dude, I uploaded this based on an opinion that it was a portrait of Pelsaert. Mike Dash (author of Batavia's Graveyard and Wikipedia user Mikedash) say no way, there's no known portrait of him. I can see no use for a rather poor quality image of a random Dutch nobleman, and don't want it coming up under this title. Can you delete it for me please? Hesperian 10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Hesperian 12:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again

<Sigh> This place is a big dysfunctional, isn't it. I just uploaded Image:Ongeluckige voyagie vant schip Batavia (Plate 3).jpg, which is a much sharper version of the horridly fuzzy Image:Ongeluckige Voyagie - massacre.jpg. I tagged the latter with {{Superseded}}, but when I previewed I noted a tiny note on the superseded template that said "deletion of superseded images has been suspended indefinitely", with a link to a long and acrimonious discussion. Seems like you can't get anything deleted around here unless you have an admin for a friend. So...

Can you delete Image:Ongeluckige Voyagie - massacre.jpg please?

Also I used Commonist to upload a complete set of page scans of Ongeluckige voyagie, van't schip Batavia, and without asking me it created and populated User:Hesperian/gallery. As I have no intention of maintaining that page, would please delete and protect that for me too?

Hesperian 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Hesperian 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Durova

Eek...forgot completely. Nom now up. giggy _(:O) 08:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Dear Gnangarra,
Thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship. I’m honored by your trust and will do my best to help build a better site. Durova 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Start small, close obvious deletion discussions. Get bolder with experience. Pretty soon Commons will have ten thousand images! (giggles, flees) ;)

Hey thanks for help with commonist

However I have a few glistches - could you look at my mistake re where it was going - and tell me is the gallery config something an admin can fix? cheers SatuSuro 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that SatuSuro 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Moira_English_Editor_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2FGrand_Mosque. giggy _(:O) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

copyvio?

I think our friend Sean may have unwittingly violated a signmaker's copyrights with Image:HilarysBoatHarbourSign Sept 2005.jpg. Speedyable? Hesperian 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

done, yeah its a derivative work. Gnangarra 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Valued images evaluation

Dear Gnangarra,

This is a standard message to the 18 different users who so far have been involved in testing Valued images candidates as either a nominator, reviewer or project editor. We are interested in hearing what you think about the project and what your positive and negative experiences have been. We would be grateful if you would voice your opinion here. Thank you,

-- Slaunger 20:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with the Valued images project

As you may have seen, this project is going live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC. Before then, there are a few things to be finished off, and any help you can give will be welcome. The latest discussion is at Commons talk:Valued images candidates#Open action items for Valued images.

When the project launches publicly on 1 June, it will need reviewers who are able to jump in quickly and provide prompt feedback. During those critical first few weeks it will be important to have a decent number of reviewers who are prepared to put in the effort to make sure the first nominations are well-reviewed, as that will set the standard for the future.

Would you help, please, with the final tasks now, and also pledge your help with some reviewing on 1 June and thereafter? --MichaelMaggs 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.js

Done

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's RfB

G'day

I just wanted to say a huge thanks for your support in my RfB. It just closed, and I'm now a bureaucrat. If you ever want to discuss any of my actions, as a 'crat, admin, or plain old user, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page.

Cheers, giggy _(:O) 10:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

qi noms

So, today first nomination is almost your wikinick backwards. yad'G! -- carol 11:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued images test review phase has ended

Dear Gnangarra Thank you for participating in the development of the Valued images project by test nominating one or more candidates. We have used the input from the test reviews to fine-tune the guidelines, process and templates used, hereby hopefully improving the setup. We have now decided that on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC), the valued image project will be opened for official nominations. To get ready for the grand opening, we will close down the last remaining open test candidates in a few hours, such that the candidates list pages are emptied and ready. Since there has been a certain amount of instruction creep over the course of the test review pahse, we have decided that all promoted and declined candidates from the test review phase will be reset to the so-called "undecided" state prior to the opening. This means that test valued image candidate review pages all end up in Category:Undecided valued images candidates and the test sets end up in Category:Undecided valued image set candidates. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Although all nominations will be reset, you, as a test nominator, will still have the advantage that each candidate can be re-nominated beginning June 1 0:00 UTC. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Click on the links to the aforementioned categories for instruction on how to renominate. In addition, the project has decided to re-nominate all candidates, which were test promoted, unless you tell us not to do so on my talk page. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems relating to valued images. I hope, you will also take part in the project once it goes on the air, either as nominator, maintainer and/or reviewer. Happy editing, -- Slaunger 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

..and thanks for your repeated encouraging remarks along this long path. I hope you are not discouraged by the project since your test candidate pf the heritage shed got (test) declined. -- Slaunger 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the farrer thingo quality thingo - trying very slowly to move around this place by my ownsome but i have the feel that ill be asking for help before i get much further :) sats not signed in:( 58.7.166.1 14:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Human beings vs software

Almost every real being who moved the discussion images into CR was able to follow the suggestions that were there on how to move them. I am thinking about it more now, and feeling badly about not recognizing that software was doing the moving before this. I am not sure if it is reflective of how much I trusted and enjoyed those people who stepped in and did things or of my not really looking at something which had obviously changed. I suggest that like most problems, the reality is somewhere in the middle of those extremes.

Do you remember when I put you on a list of people who had been helping with QI stuff?

The last five or six years of an internet which seems to rise up and demand that there be no real personalities expressed or shown is not a good one, I think. That is my opinion though. Until recently, the Aussies usually had the appearance of being kind of funny, the humorous definition of the word, not the other less positive definitions. Which is interesting, actually. My first Australian friend/acquaintance that I met in real life called himself "flakey". -- carol (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is the deal with that time stamp on the comment here before mine? -- carol (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Something was bothering me for sleep. I appreciate the shovel and would gladly give you another or use one for you, that wasn't what was bothering me. This was. I recently at the village pump used my sock to discuss something. It was talking to myself and it was stupid for me to do. Neither one of those two people are me, I am certain with a little more than a gut feeling that it was the same situation. A lot more than a gut feeling actually. That kind of instinct that is not like the hair raising on the back of your neck, but more like a strong strong feeling that it is time that I met that person and they stop doing and saying things purely for the shock value. Not an enemy and not a friend; I have some respect though and could show you some software that was kind of cool from long ago. Those two should probably stay together and I see with the tools here that this new instance of that nick has gotten admin privs at English wikipedia today. I suggest keeping those two together there also.

Not meet them this year either -- in a few years and between now and then they get a life which is built on themselves and not by being creepy online. -- carol (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you knew all that already. I don't mind getting slow in my old age though :) -- carol (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

actually that one I wanted to encourage the addition of the rider info, by declining most likely the request will get ignored. Gnangarra 00:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert but it was changed back. It should be interesting to see if the bot looks for the signature first or if it stops with the template.

You know, waiting the eight days to decide on images is like watching -- huh, I can't think of anything that slow right now, actually. I suggested a css hack once. I think it would be difficult though, where each new nomination causes a 1px right or left margin change for each 10 nominations. Making it even more like the worlds longest, slowest space invaders game.

The "speed" of a life time compared to the "speed" of technology has been interesting for me. Space Invaders on the Atari was cool once; I remember this. When Asteroids came out, I did not understand that it was probably square tiles with lines painted on them so they looked irregular. The computers we had access to did not do much as far as graphics though. Then several years later while I was substitute teaching in a High School one of those days was in a computer class and at least one of them was authoring a space invaders game. The time lapse between did not seem long enough especially when compared to other things. Postage stamps, for instance, my country had the same postage stamp (8 cents) for the first fifteen to twenty years that I was alive. Now I wonder where it (actually both, the price of postage and also computer technology) will plateau at -- level off. Playing that video game and watching a secondary school student write his own version and have access to all of the tools and stuff to do so; this happened in so much less than a lifetime. One fifth or one sixth of a lifetime if you disregard tobacco propaganda....

QIC is like the worlds longest slowest space invaders game though, even without the style effects. -- carol (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blythewood 01 gnangarra.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I suppose you would get better light in the morning. Geocode please. --Sfu 21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Geocoding done, as its private property access is restricted to when the place is open, morning photograph not possible Gnangarra 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC) It`s southern hemisphere! There would be better light in the evening. --Sfu 18:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)  Comment Please categorise this more accurately. –Dilaudid 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)  Done Gnangarra 11:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC), No objections. --Dschwen 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gnangarra/3.0 and {{Cc-by-3.0}}

Hello. In your template, you transclude {{Gfdl}}, but not {{Cc-by-3.0}}. Is that because of formatting/colors? {{Cc-by-3.0}} supports attribution details as a parameter. --AVRS (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

yep for formatting, I couldnt anything that says the template has a the funtioning to add parameters. Gnangarra 00:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now its page does. Before, it could be seen in its source code. Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

YAL

Thankyou squire. Moondyne 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Banksia acanthopoda

Hi, what happened to the picture? I didn't even have the opportunity to protest the decline. If (as I guess) it was the only one of that species on commons, it could haven been VI and/or useful in Wikispecies. I saw you deleted it under 'badname', was it wrongly identified maybe? Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. They look very exotic for a northern hemisphere dweller ;-). Lycaon (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Can you please clarify something? Was the image removed for the cultural sensitivities, or was it removed due to author request? Because if it was author request I do not believe that is a valid reason for removal, as an image remains free and valid to use on wikipedia, even if the author changes the license or removes the image alltogether, as long as it's been validated previously to be available and free under the cc-by license stated. Timeshift9 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

the request came in via OTRS,Commons deletion guidelines do say that generally we dont delete files within our scope, but we can and this was a reasonable request. Gnangarra 15:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FA-22 Raptor.jpg

Unfortunately, it didn't work out. I've gone ahead and forwarded the correspondence with the (very helpful) Lockheed representative to OTRS and closed the ticket as OTRS:1850812. Thank you for agreeing to wait, but sadly it looks like the image will have to be deleted after all.... --jonny-mt 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Numbat cons gnangarra.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Congrats!

Well done! SatuSuro (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This image does not appear to have a description in your interface language. Please add one! I seem to have this on a number of times in my gallery and i cannot find any easy accessible explanation as to what i really have to do - any suggestions? SatuSuro (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In your preferences, your preferred language should be "en". Maybe it is "en-gb"? Hesperian 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As always deeply indebted to you guys for your showing me the obvious in commons - cheers from the commons dunce SatuSuro (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Another AU-WA user -- Woot!

I thought you were a sandgroper when I saw your name, but that sign from Serpentine-Jarrahdale is nostalgic to me from my years in Rockingham-Kwinana, past Baldivis, and on the Armadale line. I just want to show you my support. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion required

• Image:DSCN1135.JPG
• Image:Newspaper House St Geos Tce Series !.JPG
• Category:Photos by SatuSuro

Opinion required - better gone?

• Image:Marlboro_on_Malioboro.jpg

• - dont know how i got them in - please could you possily consign them to the ether SatuSuro (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Newspaper House St Geos Tce Series !.JPG

still shows up on a gallery search - yet i thought you had deleted it - any reasons why that would happen? SatuSuro (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Gnangarra 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try to get a handle on a whole other batch that need removing later in the week - thanks for that

I will send a gmail in the next day or so about the drummond images i thought i had lost :) - i think my user page (en) lichen and a few others would like to compare with what you might upload as well - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kennedia prostrata 01 gnangarra.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharpness on the limit. Good colours. Still QI. Lycaon 11:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WA Flora

Nice images - I've been checking out all the flora images from you and SatuSuro as they have been uploaded - great stuff! Melburnian (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt there be a cleanup and disperse parts to subcats where poss? ie - Category:Flora of Western Australia to sub cats? SatuSuro (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got beards original reports (not complete set but at least half) maybe the ideas and thingoes need arts on wiki en SatuSuro (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Australia Flora

Until all of the plants of categories were moved into the Flora of categories, I had been mostly careful to subcategorize native plants. Australia is still in pretty good shape that way as there was never a Plants of Western Australia. I look forward to the day that they (the powers that have access to the computers) use GIT to remove that merge.

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?36526 <--wrong?

The Australian sites with this information (and I haven't looked at one in the last few days) seem more localized than the flora/plants and the information is not presented so directly, unless there was a problem and the plant is considered to be an aggressive invader.

Another question and kind of a weird one. How long do people try to have problems before there is a concession that there aren't any? It has been months and months by now and it feels like that phase should be over. -- carol (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently so FloraBase doesnt list it[3], as one of the 11,000 odd known species of plants, including weeds found in WA. Oh there was two others that also arent listed on Flora base.

What weird problem are you talking about? Gnangarra 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for sources of plant nativity (knowing that all of the recent move of the Plants of categories into the Flora of categories can be undone and easily based on user names) and I would rather use the information from Australia for Australia. This is a recap for me, btw -- some wine, three movies and too much sleeping have occurred between when I wrote about that plant you moved from native into alien or whatever happened that brought me here.

I am quite certain that I often have the same problem here as I was having right before the block at English wikipedia. Where other users had no purpose other than searching my edits for any mistake that I had made. I am certain that I have made mistakes but the way to find them would be to be interested in the subject matter and looking into that -- not interested in having problems with a user. And not all admin, but recently about several of them -- where the uploaders of images are more intelligent than the administration and respectful of the efforts of others. There are too many movies lately (to me) where all of the problems are blamed on one person and this is the story.

That last sentence in the last paragraph should be unrelated to the rest of the paragraph it is in, shouldn't it?

So, it is early in my day. I am almost at the end of a weak cup of coffee made from recycled grounds and I have no idea if the weird problem I mention today is the same one I mentioned yesterday here. Sorry about that. Later I saw where the Australians had been refining the categories for Australia Flora which is very much what I had in mind, but I was working with the whole planet (earth, last I knew) and for example of one of the problems with the Plants of categories was that they did not even have a Plants of category for a couple of the states of my country (USA). Now that information, whatever it was, has been merged into what had been very specific information and easy to understand and without a lot of stupid rules and undoing of efforts. Like I said a few times, I am knowing that the software supports and undoing based on user instances and look forward to this happening.

I watched The Dish yesterday, again. Such a tear jerker for me because I was seven years old when all that happened and well, I guess that it was a good time to be seven years old and living on this planet and the movie was very sweet like real people almost always really are. I have this strong feeling that the natural cruft of time moving on and knowledge being gained is such a better "enemy" for modern day epics than any self-appointed enemy. I compared the bots that are working here now to putting a thick layer of jelly on a piece of bread and then trying to spread the peanut butter upon that. It is not good construction.

Have you seen the templates I have made for much of the plant genus and species (and a few divisions further up). It was actually easier to work on the "Flora of" categories at the same time as I was making the templates which should be navigating through three different taxonomy trees. Working like that made a Flora of category for each of the states of USA. They now have a category for "Flora of Asia". Do you have any idea if knowing that a plant exists somewhere in one third of the world is useful for anything? I shared the paper with the divisions I was using with anyone who asked.

When I didn't understand the reason for the petty gallery vs category war among the ToL people and everyone else I did not stop them nor interfer with them (the gallery making and the Plants of categories which I still have no understanding how a plant which is physically located in South America but on a political division that belongs to Spain has any useful information to provide to anyone). They shared no paper about what they were doing and still have yet to provide an educational application other than (perhaps) Watch us clean up our mess we made from our own arrogance, ignorance and inability to play well with other people. Which is not educational for others nor is it entertaining to me.

Off for a real cup of coffee now. Sorry about the whining if it is here. Let me know if you would like to see the templates. -- carol (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Carol I care who created the cats and I'm not following you around, if you look at SatuSuro and my recent uploads you'll notice we have/are spent/spending a great deal of time(and money) obtaining photographs of WA flora and theres more to come as we confirm id's. I currently have 200 odd unidentified flowers ready to upload, I dont care about "flora of Asia" category I'm interested in Flora of WA of which theres 11,000 identified vascular species and an estimated 150,000 Cryptogams the break down I used is to a recognised second tier segregation of the region, IMHO with about 7,000 of them in the South-west Botanical province this will probably need to be broken down further as the amount of media increases. Gnangarra 23:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not complaining about you (at least I didn't think I was). I was actually enjoying that Australia was being managed as if someone who knew a little about the science was involved. I mentioned "flora of Asia" as a joke. Please reread with a little "what idiots have been at work here recently" injected into my rant or whatever. -- carol (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

off topic discussion

For an example of what I was talking about, check out Orchi's edits in the last few hours. -- carol (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Melburnian had access to the paper for the dividing of the sphere of the earth into 8 geographical subdivisions at the same time that I did and has learned how to enjoy the discussion of the word "the" here in category names since then. Are activities here the extent of the abilities of the real life user? You know, the deletion of things here and there (English wikipedia) does not mean that they don't exist. en:Unlimited Register Machine is such a thing that even if it was deleted there does not mean that it doesn't exist and perhaps could be used as the bar for making decisions about things I am doing without talking to me about them. Honestly, taxonomy is childs play (meaning fun and like logic babysteps) after that. -- carol (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Caladenia

This appears to be Caladenia longicauda based on this Melburnian (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to go for a wander thru there with a camera, the ID according to my book(Perth Plants) longicauda is found in grey/yellow sands of coastal areas, and flowers september/october.. mmmmubmling midely at the book Florabase show a greater range which covers the location...note to self check flora base Gnangarra 03:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This site is quite handy for a visual reference for SW WA orchids Melburnian (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I convinced its not likely to be C.vulgata looking there I'm inclined to think C.splendens thought the site doesnt have C.vulgata for comparison, reasoning is similar colour this one was a reasonable size not quite 28cm more like around 15-20, yet the biggest feature is the crossed legs all the C.longicauda I've seen in photos dont have the crossed legs of mine, that site the spledens do. Flora base says splendens is in the area, but flowers Sep/Oct, we've had a warm August and this one is at the northern end of its splenen's range and its a late(28th) August photo. Whats your thoughts? I got a couple but dont want to poison your thoughts with my lack of knowledge. Gnangarra 09:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They're very close aren't they. Is this Bewmalling Reserve? - a flora list for the reserve would solve it (unless it has both!) - but I can't find one on the net. Melburnian (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

SatuSuro has an incomplete flora list for Bewmalling, that we picked up with other tourist paperwork on the day. I'll see if it has them. Gnangarra 12:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it's Bewmalling is on the southern side of the avon nearer Mundaring we were north of Toodyay near Drummond, thinking it was Wattening Gnangarra 12:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a wonderful link. Thank you very much User:Melburnian! Thank you for the good orchid pictures User:Gnangarra, also! Greetings Orchi (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've found that to be a very useful link, Orchi. Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems, thanks for the link your welcome to change the ID on my photos, there's still more to come I got about 6 more weeks of peek flowering for local plants. Gnangarra 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok went back to the maps, on the run first place was Bewmalling Nature Reserve, then Drummond Nature Reserve, then Wattening Reserve(no photos from there uploaded yet). The Spider orchid is from Bewmalling and C.longicauda is the only species confirmed in the area so C.longicauda it is. Gnangarra 13:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Flora lists for locations, when they are available, are certainly a big help for ID. Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The tree based lichen that appeared on my user page for a while was from wattening reserve SatuSuro (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion is a wusses way out

http://xkcd.com/475/

I am disappointed. -- carol (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it had nothing to do with the discussion about the identification of spider orchid, but I couldnt understand what you were talking about. Any its not deletd its been acrhved. Gnangarra 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have settled down some. I cannot throw one of those things and I don't know that I have ever seen one thrown successfully (television doesn't count). I was adding to where user names were, not to the subject being discussed. I think I took my problem/question to the appropriate talk page. I have also erased text from my talk page, so feel free to call me a wuss because I really did see no way out of what was inevitable in those instances. Making sense is not a stipulation there, but typing and typing accusations and perceptions of insults until an insult or a hurt feeling can be obtained is not allowed. ...dreams which are not from my mind. ...food mis-labeled and containing dangerous ingredients (last summer). ...very wrong situations which relocated me where I am. If I ever am able to make sense at all it is kind of a miracle. One of the things I am unable to manage very well is when a user instance which has been for months and months very sweet turns all aggressive and weird. http://xkcd.com/468/ <--requires the tossing out of statistical evidence and publisher/media driven stereotypes. Sorry to mess on your talk page. -- carol (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hakea

Would you mind zapping Image:Hakea sericea.jpg, I've now uploaded a duplicate under its correct name Image:Hakea decurrens.jpg Melburnian (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Beat ya! Hesperian 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Melburnian (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Petrophile

I think Image:Isopogon gnangarra 07.JPG Image:Isopogon gnangarra 06.JPG Image:Isopogon gnangarra 05.JPG may be Petrophile heterophylla [4] [5] Melburnian (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One book

checking tonight uggested all three varieties are the same thing - odd SatuSuro (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Causeway_SatuSuro-1.JPG&action=history and the kiddies on computer early so cannot do upload today by looks at all :( SatuSuro (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A Favour

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:28th_departure_St_Geos_Tce.JPG I would appreicte a check if I have done this one right - please could you correct any mistakes - if it's ok its a flood :( SatuSuro (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

KMSAPMWA

I just read some instructions somewhere and I would like whoever to know that they can kiss my sweet and probably mostly white ass.... -- carol (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

South-west Botanical Province

Category:South-west Botanical Province, two things.

1. Compliments: This is really cool -- it was nice to find and see and it looks like it took a lot of work to get it together here.

1. For your consideration: The title "South-west Botanical Province" is kind of non-specific location-wise. A similar subdivision for the United States here is titled Category:Southwestern United States and for Brazil which is a very large chunk of land for one political division has the name Category:Brazil Northeast with the individual states or provinces or whatever they call their second level divisions. I actually still have some problems with the names this way -- recently I was so angry because I had forgotten that I had asked for Category:China Biocountry to be deleted and it had been deleted and I should not have asked that it be deleted, but China is an example of a large area which also might have a "South-west Botanical Province" or "Southwest Botanical Province" or "Southwestern Botanical Province". Maybe one of the potential problems with this name is best expressed with this question: "On a sphere or a globe, where is 'South-west'?"

Mostly, it is really nice to see this happening. -- carol (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have the same concern, thinking maybe Category:South-west Botanical Province, Western Australia or Category:South-west Botanical Province, Australia but I need to get/chase down a couple of references to see which is the more accurate dab, off wiki life time has been hectic lately. For now it doesnt conflict with any other botanical province and the page says where it is so I dont see an immediate concern.
Maybe Hesperian or Melburnian might have some suggestions as to how to dab all three provinces. Gnangarra 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hence the word "consideration". There is no other "South-west Botanical Province" in the rest of Australia either? Or, maybe the name was chosen to mean Southern West Australia or West Australia South. Botanical is a good word, but does that mean that another word needs to be found for the animal kingdom if they also reside natively in that area? These are some of the things I thought about, with the exception of migration, the bugs and animals probably live where they can eat and those plants are what they eat? You can think about them or not, but I soon arrived at that idea that the geography/geology, plants and animals were all kind of intertwined together and the subdivisions for these things would just naturally go together. I make no claims here that any of my thinking on this was accurate or complete.... -- carol (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC) I struck out what was answering something that wasn't said or asked. Sorry about that. The rest is more for your consideration and the reason I adopted the plant divisions I was working with for Fauna (the best word still I think for the animal kingdom) and the land and climate things. -- carol (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Though still the most commonly used name in Western Australia, Southwest Botanical Province is rather old-fashioned; it is Ludwig Diel's name, so very early 20th century. It was kept current by John Stanley Beard's adoption of the name in 1981. Beard's regions have been superseded by the IBRA regions, but IBRA didn't define any provinces so Beard's names are still in use for them.

Globally the most common name is Southwest Australia, which is the WWF's ecoregion name for it. That might be more appropriate.

Good morning Carol.

Hesperian 01:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, good mooning back maybe, but I am uncertain of the phase.... -- carol (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The "no original work" rule is not so strong for something like this, I think. Especially when there does not seem to be anything like commons and its image collection before this. For example, it seems that Australia has only plantae kingdom web sites and United States has ITIS which also has species from the animal kingdom, but mostly no one else has as much to work with as is here and it might even be one of those internet firsts which are rarer and rarer to have the older that the internet gets. I consider my morphing of the Ecozones with the TWG maps to be new but not original and I would also encourage the Aussies to get the best of all the options and morph them together to make something that is complete, sensible and informative. I am respectfully not looking up the names of the next divisions in the paper I was using, btw. -- carol (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The tribe Mirbelieae

User:Ausxan (TUSC Token owner and talk page eraser) added Category:Mirbelieae to Category:Flora of Tasmania. In my plans, I was putting only species into these categories. I haven't been working on that stuff lately and I am unable to come up with an extremely good reason for this but I do have at least a reason for it. The categories now give counts of how many categories, pages and files they contain and I have seen this number in use. So I am think "easy species count" but it won't be like that if those categories contain tribes and genus. The wikipedias are collections of articles so I can understand not wanting an article for every taxon level thru a monogeneric monospecies (whatever the language is), but commons isn't articles and it is so much like a database and having all of those levels seems useful to me. If there are any arguments against this, I would like to know them. My inability to think of any reaons not to is not a bias, at least I think it isn't. I really can't think of any reasons not to maintain all of the taxon levels here. An image collection is different from an article collection.

So, this is what I did and it will be a problem if the area I called Tasmania gets subdivided the way West Australia is becoming. I put Category:Flora of Tasmania into {{Mirbelieae species}}. That is not one of the most impressive of the genus templates, but it is a good one. Category:Aotus ericoides <-- used there, it changes the Aotus to Aotus (Fabaceae) and locates the species into the category for Tasmania.

Also, I took Tasmania off from the tribe category. I can undo everything (more easily than it was explained, actually), but I would appreciate discussion first. -- carol (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

??

The category and description are there - I am mystified by the insistence on remaming by various - a bite can removed a finger with ease - any suggestions? SatuSuro (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Photography critique comments

Thank you for your comments on my images listed at the photography critiques page. I agree with your comments: it's a shame about the image size; I was rather disappointed. However, I will attempt to take similar photos of the self-same subjects. And with a higher resolution. I would certainly like to aim for QI status with some of my images. Elucidate (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed several more of my photographs on the critiques page. Any further comments would be much appreciated. Elucidate (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

link

User talk:Tirin