User talk:Stemonitis
| Image deletion warning | Image:Coa_de-bayern_lesser_300px.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
Reason for request: SVG Vector Version available --David Liuzzo 15:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind help in identifying a plant on an image of mine. -- Túrelio 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
[edit]
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]][[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.BotMultichillT 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Craig yr Allt.jpg is uncategorized since 17 January 2009. BotMultichillT 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Image:RugbyPitchMetric.svg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Fixed. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Geia sas Stemonitis
[edit]Voyez www.mer-nature.org, rubrique Programme, et dites-nous s'il vous palit si vous nous autorisez à utuiler votre belle photo d'Anurides maritimes dans notre expo "Les Inventions de l'Evolution" (entrée gratuite).
Notre mail est : mernature@wanadoo.fr
Merci !
Ion Argyriadis et --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Stemonitis, thanks for identification. Many greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
|
File:Macrobrachium_carcinus.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
I hope you don't mind? Hans 12:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unidentified plants
[edit]I notice that you refined the category of some of mine unidentified plants. Thank you very much. I was wondering if you have any idea what plant could this be? File:Flower.1613.jpg It is on a dry stone wall, overgrow with moss, in a humid, shadowy place in the forest. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know the Swiss flora well enough to be absolutely certain, but it looks a lot like Moehringia muscosa (de:Moos-Nabelmiere). --Stemonitis (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thx :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Stemonitis
- I need help again. Are you able to identify #2 (File:Cyperaceae spp Sturm9.jpg)? ThePlantList.org tells that:[1]
- Cyperus capitatus Vand., syn. Cyperus mucronatus (L.) Mabille
- Cyperus laevigatus subsp. distachyos (All.) Ball, syn. Cyperus mucronatus Rottb.
- Cyperus laevigatus L., syn. Cyperus mucronatus L.
- Pycreus flavidus (Retz.) T.Koyama, syn. Cyperus mucronatus Steud.
- FloraWeb.de lists Schoenoplectus mucronatus (L.) Palla,[2] the others seem to be quite absent in France & Germany.[3]
- Can you help? Thx. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Although I have had modest successes with the genus Carex, Cyperus and related genera are still beyond me. Unless Sturm included authority information (several authors have described a "Cyperus mucronatus", presumably referring to different species), it will be difficult to guess which is correct. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thx, I know, this book is a pain in the neck ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, it might interest you. I'm updating this book Regal:Biologie#Bestimmungsbücher. 13 volumes of 14 are done, I think that they look nice ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Ilex aquifolium
[edit]Hi Stemonitis,
This is Ilex aquifolium too? File:1 Plant sp. - Kew 30.jpg
And thank you for recognizing the other pictures! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, that looks like a Hedera helix cultivar, but there are also other species in the same genus. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm here again! It could be this × Fatshedera lizei or Hedera algeriensis. Both look like my plant. What is your opinion? DenesFeri (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would say not Fatshedera, just guessing from the leaf shape in other pictures. H. algeriensis is a possibility. It's really difficult to say just on the basis of the leaves. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway! I will put it in Hedera algeriensis category, untill someone who new better will put it on its right place. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the identifications! DenesFeri (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for double checking. Hans 13:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly which edit(s) of mine this refers to, but you're very welcome! --Stemonitis (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thalassina anomala
[edit]
Hi Stemonitis,
I'm almost sure that on its label/paper with the name, it was written Thalassina anomala. Or now, thats only a synonym? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I assume this is in reference to File:Iz - Thalassina anomala 2.jpg. Thalassina anomala is still very much a valid name, but for a quite different animal (see image). Your photo shows a very clear example of a slipper lobster (family Scyllaridae), but I can't identify it any more precisely than that at the moment. Sometimes specimens get mislabelled. (Could you have read the label for an adjacent specimen?) --Stemonitis (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I might read another specimen's label. Than, I don't know the real name of my creature. Thank you for the correcting my mistake! DenesFeri (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Photographer's Barnstar |
| Hi!
My name is Edoardo Bit, I am an architect and also a “young researcher” of the University of Ferarra (Italy). I am writing a book on the “green walls technologies” and I have found very interesting a photo in your page. So, I would kindly ask you if I can use it in my book. Obviously, if you gently decide to grant me the permission, your name (or your nickname) and the link of the picture will be correctly cited in the credits of my publication.
Bye, Edoardo Edoardo.bit (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you, and of course you can use it! It's already available under a Creative Commons licence, which is probably enough. If you would like me to release it under another licence, do ask. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Use Request for NPS Dock 102 Visitor Center
[edit]Hello!
I’m contacting you from Formations Inc., an exhibit design firm in Portland, Oregon. We’re working on a series of exhibits for the National Park Service’s Dock 102 visitor center on Governor’s Island in New York. We'd like to use your photo of barnacles (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barnacles.jpg) on a panel that will show visitors the kinds of creatures they can find on and around the dock.
I see that the page for the barnacles has a note that the image has been released for any type of use; however, our client (the NPS) has asked that we be diligent in verifying all sources, so I'm contacting you to verify that you did take the image and are the copyright holder and that the intended use mentioned above is acceptable.
Thank you very much for your time.
Best regards,
Katie
- Yes, I took the picture, I hold the copyright, and I am more than happy for you to use it in your exhibit (or anywhere else). --Stemonitis (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for sharing your work! It'll be a great addition to the exhibits. If you're ever in New York, hope you can stop by Governor's Island and check out the visitor center! -Katie
|
Category:Salt_evaporations_ponds_of_the_United_States 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! |
Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
your changes in Orchis area
[edit]Hi Stemonitis, as per User_talk:Túrelio#Wiederherstellung I've reverted several of your edits of today, which resulted in an invalidation of a system created by User:Orchi, who is quite a specialist in botanics. Before making such changes, it's always better to first discuss with other players, in this case with User:Orchi. --Túrelio (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- It cuts both ways. Orchi should have discussed these changes before making them, because they produce an inconsistent and ultimately unhelpful system. The MediaWiki software already alphabetises the pages and subcategories within a category, and deals very well with the situation of there being more than can be shown on one page. The system imposed by Orchi is far inferior to that which already exists. As to the collation of species, why should nothospsecies in particular be separated from the others? The standard practice in botanical listings and elsewhere (including en.wiki, for instance), is for the "×" to be ignored for the purposes of collation (it doesn't really have a place in alphabetical order, anyway, even if it has a position in ASCII). Under normal alphabetical ordering (i.e. Epipactis × reinekii appearing under "R" in Epipactis), the nothospecies are still visibly distinguished, but the overall order makes more sense. In this regard, the current situation at Category:Epipactis is much better than that at Category:Ophrys. I don't doubt Orchi's botanical credentials, but his/her proposed system for categories here was an unfortunate choice, and should be undone, and that also applies to Category:Oncidium, which I haven't yet had time to address. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, all of the following categories need to be fixed, because the system of dividing into alphabetical categories is deeply flawed. I'm sorry I didn't spot the introduction of this ill-advised system sooner, because it would have saved all of us a lot of work. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- At the same time when I posted my above comment, I have also asked Orchi to discuss this with you. If you (both) finally cannot come to an agreement, you might involve other editors experienced with botanical taxonomy and/or classification. Regrettably that's not my expertise. --Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
|
|
File:FairSnapeFell.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
121.220.127.56 12:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Populus pics
[edit]Hi Stemonitis - I took a look at the tree again today, and it's definitely Populus alba as I remembered; strongly 3- to 5-lobed leaves on vigorous shoots, and leaves strongly felted vivid white below. But feel free to replace the pics on the en:wiki page, they're not very high resolution, and are of a cultivated specimen outside of its native range - if there are pics of natural specimens, better to use them instead. As an aside the en:wiki article could do with some clean-up; White Poplar should be given first as the English name; the other vernacular names given first aren't common names, they're "rare" names (i.e., virtually never used); also the second header should be corrected to 'Hybridisation' to match spellings on the rest of the page. Thanks! (I won't do it myself as I got so sick of the hostile editing environment on en:wiki that don't do anything there any more). - MPF (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. I might have a go at improving that article if I can find the time, and will certainly take your suggestions on board. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)