User talk:Cotinis

A Warm Welcome From a Fellow Wikipedian!

Welcome!

Hello, Cotinis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Filmcom 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks for the welcome. I'm, unfortunately, used to old-fashioned html and new-fashioned web applications. This Wiki code is quite unfamiliar to me. The links of tips should come in very handy. --Cotinis 15:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Louisiana Waterthrush

Hi. I noticed you added Category:Parulidae to the Lousiana Waterthrush article. This inclusion is not necessary and is to be avoided since Category:Seiurus is already contained within Category:Parulidae. Category:Seiurus is a subcategory of Category:Parulidae and guideline #3 of Wikipedia:Categorization states "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory.". For more information regarding this topic you may read Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. I hope you contribute your excellent work on Wikipedia. Take care. Joelito 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wondered about that one. The Northern Waterthrush had category Parulidae, but not category Seiurus, I think, and that was the model I was following--you might want to check it. Thanks for the correction. --Cotinis 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image credits

I couldn't point you to where the policy is written, but you will see that credits never appear in taxoboxes for other articles, and I know that they are always removed (by many editors, not just me) because the information should be on the image page. Perhaps a half way house would be to use hidden text to keep the information easily accessible, eg ? jimfbleak 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbat

I couldn't find it in my (admittedly British) dictionary, but I accept that I may have been a bit trigger happy. I think when you reinstate this you need to clarify where exactly it is used, because I've never heard the phrase in Canada, Florida, Central America or T&T. Is it current or obsolete? I've no objection in principle to valid folk names. although with some, like Great Bittern you can end up with a long list of obsolete English regional names with no present-day currency. Sorry for my hastiness, jimfbleak 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullbat is current, at least to the late 20th century. I have heard the name used in North Carolina and, I believe, in Minnesota. The name is not used by birders, but by people with some rural background. I think it is awfully hard to tell if a folk name is current, because current among middle-class birders (myself included) may be very different than current among non-birders. I was very surprised to hear Rain Crow used for the Yellow-billed Cuckoo circa 1990, not having heard it in 30 years of birding, but my friend who used it assured me it was a name he grew using in rural North Carolina. (He is educated, with a PhD in biological sciences, just not a birder.) I'll add Bullbat back in and also reference Terres, which has lists of folk names.

Hi, guys, sorry to create so much controversy. :-) I learned the name Bullbat from my mother - that is what she calls it, and they do look like bats while in flight. She also calls a Killdeer a Killdee. I live in Texas - she is in Eastern New Mexico for whatever that's worth. I promise not to vandalize any more articles! H2O 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotinis, thanks for including some of the common names used by non-birders. I noticed you created a redirect page for Bullbat (thanks!) Including the other names will be helpful for non-birders who attempt to look up birds in Wikipedia but don't know the "proper" name. I am a birder myself, though not as active now as when I was younger. I went through my life list the other day and have been adding various bits of info to some of the birds with which I am familiar. H2O 14:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opheodrys - Question for you

I was looking at your contributions and saw the link you had created to WP commons for these snakes. I saw a similar looking green snake on a bush by the side of a river in Honduras about ten years ago. Maybe it has gotten bigger in my memory, but as I recall it was about 3-4 feet long. Any idea whether it might have been one of these or do you know of a reference I can go to find out? H2O 14:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not sound like Opheodrys to me, which are pencil-thin, but I am a very amateur herpetologist. I don't see anything on the web useful. There are a couple of guides for Central America, I remember seeing one at a bookstore and being impressed by the number of photos, but I don't remember exactly which one it was. I see two on amazon.com:

A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Maya World: The Lowlands of Mexico, Northern Guatemala, and Belize (Paperback) by Julian C. Lee Amphibians and Reptiles of Northern Guatemala, the Yucatan, and Belize by Jonathan A. Campbell Reptiles of Central America (Hardcover) by Larry David Wilson (Foreword), Gunther Kohler I might find one of these at a university library and try browsing through it. I did Google "Green Snake" for various Central American countries, and there are a couple of big green snakes frequently seen. Try Googling Green Parrot Snake or Green Vine Snake. Those two look rather like big Opheodrys, and I think they both hang out in trees and bushes. Good luck.

I have been doing a little searching this morning and I do now think what I saw was the Green Vine Snake, Oxybelis fulgidus. It did have a pointed head. Thanks for the help. H2O 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regina septemvittata

Kudos to you, for the excellent photo of the Queen snake. I started that article last summer and it has been vastly improved by the addition of the image. Thanks for your help in improving the knowledge base here, and please, keep up the good work. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. It's a beautiful creature and I appreciate your article.--Cotinis 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine

Although they can be outflown in level flight, Peregrines may well be the fastest species in the world in a stoop, it's the actual figure that's suspect as you suggest. I read some time ago that the fastest scientifically measured speed was around 100 mph - the "it flew past my plane" figures are always going to be suspect. jimfbleak 05:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Poorwill

I've added a few bits, and fixed the breeding details from a more recent source. Now, no excuses, go and find one. jimfbleak 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical authors

You are welcome. For botanical author abbreviations the source is The International Plant Name Index. This is the list published by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. I use the following template {{botanist|<<abbrev>>|<<last name>>, <<first name>>}} . And yes, you should add them to List of botanists by author abbreviation. Sorry I forgot to do that. -- Open2universe 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work on American butterflies

A much neglected set of orphan artcles, need all the love and care they can get. Give them a big kiss|good images and it will work wonders. Would you consider restructuring into Description, Range, Taxonomy, Habitat, Status, Habits, Lifecycle (Eggs, cats, pupa, foodplants)? Something on the lines of Red Pierrot or Common Mormon?

Looking forward to more butterfly interaction.AshLin 02:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to get to some. They are rather a big time-sink, but I do love lepidoptera so. (Unfortunatley I love birds, plants, beetles, neuroptera, etc., as well!) Thanks for the suggested templates, those will be very helpful. --Cotinis 03:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Lepidoptera is up and needs good moth-ers

Hi Cotinis,

Just to inform you that WikiProject Lepidoptera is up and meant for use of Lepidoptera authors such as yourself. Do use the information, templates etc. Do consider signing up too.

Regards, AshLin 03:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Duck

Hi Cotinis, Thank you for your message. Regarding the image (sorry for poor quality), I don't mind to reposition. Do what you think best for Wiki. Also, when you change it please change the photo info from Field Museum to AMNH. Regards --Stavenn 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa

As I mentioned on the Talk:Painted Lady page, I have my doubts that your photo is virginiensis. My understanding: normally, the distinguishing white spot of virginiensis should be visible both dorsally and ventrally, although perhaps slightly dimmer dorsally. Also, virginiensis is normally paler at the leading edge, like cardui. Because of the darkness of leading edge, your photo looks most like annabella, although based on the location you shot it, that seems unlikely. Why do you say it is virginiensis and not cardui? How confident are you? Best, Chinasaur 10:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the white spot in the orange area not being there, but I disagree. The white dot on the forewing does not always occur on V. virginiensis, see, for instance, BugGuide account. (I just looked, and I have a photo of another (I believe) V. virginensis in my files that lacks the white spot. It does show the characters 1-3 following.) Other characters separate the two species and are visible in my photo: 1-barring pattern at anterior edge of forewing. V. virginiensis has two heavy oblong-triangular bars perpendicular to edge. In V. cardui these are more rounded spots. This is mentioned in the field guides. 2-Pattern of spots on trailing edge of hindwing. V. virginiensis has spots of uneven size, V. cardui's are smaller and more uniform. This parallells the pattern of spots on the underside of the hindwing. 3-This is not mentioned in the guides, but as I look at sets of photos on the web, I believe the forewings of V. virginiensis are more falcate than those of V. cardui--the tips of the latter's wings are broadly rounded. The forewings in my photo are rather falcate.

Some good reference photo sets are Randy Emmitt's photos of V. virginiensis and V. cardui. Another good set is from Jeff Pippen, see his pages for V. virginiensis and V. cardui.

V. anabella does not occur in this area. The darkness on the leading edge--I can't account for that specifically, but this was a very fresh specimen. Maybe the white dot is due to wear that normally occurs quickly? (I do see a hint of it in another photo of this individual, and it looks like a tiny bit of worn scales. Shear speculation on my part.)

Thanks for the query--this is making me look critically at the photo and pay attention. Certainly the identification from a dorsal view is a bit tricky. What do you think? I'm not an expert, but I do see V. virginiensis all the time--it is common in my area (Piedmont North Carolina), whereas V. cardui is only common during irruptions, which occur every few years.--Cotinis 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad this is not more clear cut. If you are confident of some of these characters, you could update the article a little. I'll check your suggestions and see if I can find any more info. Thanks, Chinasaur 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See some more comments I made on Talk:Painted Lady. The one character of the spots connected by a dot, or not, is clear-cut and given in the field guides. The white dot on the orange background is variable, and not always present. I'll do a composite for BugGuide and reference it there--perhaps that will help. --Cotinis 17:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds

Hi, I see your work and I like it. Any chance of you joining WikiProject Birds? Dysmorodrepanis 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CLW

Brookie here - I note that you have posted a note to CLW - he seems to have disappeared off the radar since April - so you might not get a response. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tsigganes-Greek Gypsies.jpg

Thanks for the note - I'll look into it - it's a very good picture and I share your concerns! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:Tsigganes-Greek_Roma-Gypsies.jpg

I am User:Brookie - an Admin on the English Wiki - I have had this message posted on my user page:

Image:Tsigganes-Greek Gypsies.jpg, which had previously been deleted [1] on en.wikipedia as a possible copyright violation is now on Commons: commons:image:Tsigganes-Greek_Roma-Gypsies.jpg. Could you take a look at it? I'm just not familiar with the whole suspected copyright violation flagging procedure, especially on Commons. This image looks suspicious to me--it appears to be done by a professional, and the user who posted it, claiming it was their own work, has not posted other original photographs. Given the deletion history on en.wikipedia, it seems odd that it shows up on commons a couple of months later, uploaded by a different user. I do not find it in any non-Wikipedia context on a Google image search, however. Thanks for the help. --Cotinis 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone look into this query? Thanks Brookie 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google found it easily with the word tsigganes. A Vasilis Artikos on trekearth.com claims the photo his own. Looking at the quality of his other photos there, it's very like that it is. Also on a sister site treklens.com he has the same people a few seconds before or after. The sites say that "Photographs from the TrekEarth/TrekLens Gallery section are also protected under United States and international copyright laws and may not be reproduced or transmitted in any way without prior, written permission from the respective photographer." Since there is nothing to connect this artikos to the uploader here or on en, you can safely add the {{copyvio}} template to this image. --Para 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted a copyvio tag on the picture at Commons Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

images

Your images of seabirds are fantastic. Cheers muchly! Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's my first try at photographig pelagics. I took about 700 digital photos on a two-day trip and several came out well. (Thank goodness for digital--that would have been outrageously expensive with film.) I'm happy to see that they will get some good use here on Wikipedia. Cotinis 11:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eastern newt

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, Image:Notophthalmus viridescens edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Your Eastern newt picture]

Hi, There is a raging discussion going on at WT:FPC regarding the color balance of your eastern newt picture. You may be able to clear up the confusion. As I'm sure you saw, an edit of your picture became featured picture after concerns that the original was too red shifted. All the techno babel aside, Can you take a look at its nomination and compare the two images and let me, or the other interested parties, know what exactly the correct colors are. Many thanks. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drymarchon page

Hi Cotinis. I just removed a couple of dead links from the drymarchon page that were for an image (File:E Indigo Atlanta.jpg) you uploaded last May of an Eastern indigo snake. Since you had used that image to replace a copyright vio, I figured there might be some unexpected problem with this new image. Any ideas?? Thanks, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have any ideas. I remember the image, vaguely, and I believe I found it on Wikimedia Commons. Of course, now that it has been deleted, it is not available. I see from the deletion log here that it was deleted by a now retired user, Alkivar. --Cotinis (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few further recollections--though vague. I believe I found the image on Wikimedia Commons, which is where I usually look for images, and I believe it was uploaded and properly licensed by a contributor there--at least that is what I thought. However there are now no images under that genus at all on Commons. Perhaps there was a problem with that license. (I have seen people on Commons falsely claim that images they find on the web are their own work, and this can be difficult to uncover.) I'm rather disturbed about the whole thing because I am extremely careful about copyright--I have flagged quite a few images as copyvio myself. Oh well--sorry I cannot be of more help.--Cotinis (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Notophthalmus viridescensPCCA20040816-3983A.jpg

Hi! I wonder if you'd be interested in uploading a slightly bigger version of your newt pic before I renominate it at WP:FPC. It seemed to be the only real objection to the original nom apart from the colour.. around 1600px wide would be fine, but no real worries if you'd rather not. --mikaul^talk 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it is now replaced on Commons under the same name. --Cotinis 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sharpened it, touched out the white dust(?) specks and fiddled with the caption a bit. It's currently doing really well at WP:FPC: thought I'd let you know! --mikaul^talk 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks fine. That was actual dust (pine pollen?) on the critter, that is why I did not remove it--I usually do clone out sensor dust specks if I see them, which those were not. (Taking out the pine pollen is an aesthetic improvement.) I had sharpened it once already, with a touch of Photoshop unsharp mask--that is my standard procedure. It looks fine with more sharpening, but I find that too much sharpening tends to degrade some image detail, and of course, can make scaling a little problematic. Still, no problem, and thanks for the nomination and the help. --Cotinis (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

Hi Patrick,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Notophthalmus viridescensPCCA20040816-3983A.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 13, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-13. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008 Birds Project Newsletter Link

The November 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Addbot (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 00:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds October newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds November newsletter

The November 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Birds February newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds March newsletter

The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds April newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds May newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 06:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds June newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Newsletter delivery by –xeno ^talk 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

I nominated an image you uploaded for FPC, it needs description of the revision you made to it: File:Cephalopterus_penduligerIbisV1-1859-p003AA.jpg --I'ḏ ♥One 03:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not get your note until 19 August. For reference, I left some clarification on that page, and also some notes on the caption on Wikimedia Commons. The image looks fine on two different monitors I use, but the plumage is supposed to be dark, and it is difficult to get good results in dark areas on different monitors. Heck, it is difficult to get good detail in print when you have very dark areas. Quite a lot of drama over one image.--Cotinis (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA for Edmundus?

Hello Cotinis. "Way back when" you started an article on Edmund Jaeger. I've done some work on it in the last year and I think it may qualify as a WP:GA. Please take a look and let me know what you think. With your expertise, can you advise on proper usage in the infobox for Author citation (botany)? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cotinis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]