User talk:A doubt

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, A doubt!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ebola SVG graph

I'll update the Ebola SVG log plot for you in the next day or two when I get some time. I had not updated it in awhile as no one was using it and the reported numbers are increasingly inaccurate (under reported) - especially from Liberia.--Aflafla1 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I'd really appreciate an update. Of course you're right about the under reported case numbers, but that's the available data and there are already remarks about the situation in the German article. Bye, --A doubt (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New contributor

Hello A doubt,
You seem a very promissing contributor.
I just wanted to point out some on wikicommons rules/habits:

• We are not supposed to create empty categories (Like Category:Yersiniaceae)
• We don't follow changes of classifications of a single source. We follow the consensus
  • For example, if you look at Category:Erwinia you will see 4 sources against 1 source => we don't follow the single source
  • There are exceptions, like for birds we follow each change of IOC classification because we decided that we would follow it and IOC is a commitee that already search greater consensus.

  So, yes, it makes us follow slowly classification changes. But we are only a repository on medias, right?

• If you really want to follow a new classification change, we support double classifications (Like Category:Erwinia is in 2 categories) For that we have {{Taxoconflict}} (see Category:Enterobacteriaceae) and {{SN}} (see Category:Enterobacteriales)
• Most contributors don't like NCBI (It is not my case, as I created {{NCBI}}). Just because they said, that they wrote in their website not to take them as a reference.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Liné1: ,

thank you for the explanations. As you may have noticed, I tried to contact you yesterday as well, to assure that I don't intend to mess up things "just for fun". Well, I understand the argumentation of various sources against one source, and I appreciate your effort with the Category:Enterobacteriaceae to specify all the genera from the different sources. Regarding this I see it as 3 sources (Catalogue of Life, ITIS and WoRMS) against 2 sources (NCBI and LPSN = List of procaryotic names with standing in nomenclature), and actually the LPSN is what matters.

You don't know me, and since I wasn't active on wikicommons for a long time, I might even look like a newbie being a know-it-all at the same time. My home Wikipedia is the German Wikipedia, and as one can see on my user page, I have been working on some issues regarding microbiology. That is quite a short explanation to assure that I know what is behind the new taxonomy of the ordo Enterobacterales. But besides my own experience, that might be questionable, there are these facts:

The rules of classification of prokaryotes (or bacteria) differ from plants or animals, the description can be found in the article de:Systematik der Bakterien, hopefully it is understandable (second paragraph), that the publication or revision in the en:International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) (Erstpublikation oder Revision im International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM)) is the key. And in the same paragraph the en:LPSN is mentioned to be the database where the results can be found. More details can be found here: de:International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria or en:International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Regarding the reliability for microbiologists or Wikipedia authors in this subject area, we follow LPSN or NCBI. I'm not familiar with ITIS nor WoRMS, the latter being a database for marine species, which represents only a part of the known bacteria, as one can see in only a few genera in the familia Enterobacteriaceae. "Not familiar" has to be understood in the way of not being an important source for bacteria.

So hopefully it is now comprehensible why I created categories like Category:Yersiniaceae, because it should be the parent category for the appropriate genera, like Yersinia or Serratia. Other people than microbiologists (or people familiar with microbiology) tend to ignore or rather are not aware of the latest issues, in my opinion the other sources mentioned will update their databases in two years or so. What can we do now? Is there some kind of discussion portal at wikicommons, where these statements should be placed, rather than here, on a user page?

Kind regard, --A doubt (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello A doubt

1. At first glance I knew you had good intentions and good knowledge ;-)
2. LPSN seems a interesting source. So clearly 2 good sources (NCBI & LPSN) against 2-4 generalist (ITIS, BioLib, WoRMS) is now in favor of your changes
3. I will allow source=LPSN + perhaps add a {{LPSN}} template.
4. Then I will enforce your changes

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Liné1,

thank you very much for your efforts, I'm sure the bacteria at wikicommons will appreciate a LPSN template for a proper reference, at least their photographers will ;-) I'm waiting for your enforcement and I'm relieved that you accepted that microbiology has some rules that differ from other biological subjects.

Kind regard, --A doubt (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Budviciaceae

Category:Budviciaceae 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. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Rots61 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Re:Iran COVID-19 map: sources?

Dear: Due to the Iranian government and IRNA did not provide the province data. So that I can't update the map. Sorry.--Alexchris (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, Alexchris. Kind regards, --A doubt (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)