If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.
If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Wilson Peak, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
I've put a comment on the FPC page. Check it out, and, if you agree, please correct what I think is a factual error. Thanks! --Janke | Talk09:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming (so I could be wrong) that the photo was taken looking north from Loon. Is that correct? If so, I'll give you the peaks (I hope!) and a reference. JJ16:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an indispensable reference: Scudder, Brent E. Scudder's White Mountain Viewing Guide, High Top Press: Bellmore, NY 1995. He has drawn panoramas from many of the major peaks in New Hampshire, including Loon. You are more familiar with the exact direction when you took the photograph, but I believe the peaks are, from left to right, Mount Lincoln, Mount Flume, North Twin (in the distance), Osseo Peak, Whaleback Mountain, and Potash (right foreground). Send me your image (to john-at-whitemountainart-dot-com) and I'll label them for you so that you know what I'm talking about.
If the vantage point is low, your identifications may be right. I confess to being pretty confused myself! Let's see if anyone else pipes in. JJ18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look at and comment on this image in preparation. I was hoping to gather your opinion (well informed as it is about FPCs) regarding the potential of this image. Obviously, to date, the Margin and Venation sections aren't done, but I've done one example for each of those categories. I will complete it either as 1) a set of 3 images illustrating variation in leaf shape, margin, and venation, or 2) a poster-like compilation of all three, as in the mock-up above. Do you think it would be favorably received as an FPC in either of those forms? neither? Do you think it should adorn articles as a single image or as parts? Thanks for any thoughts. - Debivort09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it is certainly well received by me :-). Hard to say how the response on FPC will end up. Look at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DrugChart where part of the discussion was about how the pic would look as a thumbnail on the main page. What are you using to create the pic? Looks vector based and thus would suggest using SVG as a file format (postersize printouts would be possible) plus you could even hyperlink words to WP articles. Well, it looks like this is becoming a pretty valuable contibution anyhow, let's worry about FPC later :-) --Dschwen10:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts on the morphology image. I am making it in Adobe Illustrator. I am not familiar with the SVG format, but would be happy to format it that way, assuming I dont have to do it all again from scratch ;-) Do you know about Illustrator and SVG? Also, is it possible to set the thumbnail manually? If so, several close ups from the image could make attractive thumbs, like Rosette or Whorled or Tripinnate. Thanks again Debivort10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Illustrator can save as SVG, so no additional effort needed. Not sure about adding hyperlinks though. --Dschwen11:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me! I don't see any major problems that might prevent it from becoming an FP, though I think an SVG version would be preferable. The second, 'poster', form is my preference. This really does look like a great diagram; visually attractive and very informative. Raven4x4x09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great diagram! Very clear, and good looking, too. (Not to mention - superbly encyclopedic!) By all means, do finish it and put it up on FPC (but don't forget to put it in an article first... ;-) However, and I'm sorry to say this, but I may abstain from voting, since I don't think diagrams in general look very good when featured on the Main Page, in that small size - and it really should "grab you" even that small... That's why I opposed the drug chart, and was neutral on the tranformer - but, to be honest, your graphic design here is far better than that, so there's no way I can oppose it.--Janke | Talk13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job. Since I wrote substantial parts of the article Leaf, I've been looking in vain on the web for a GFDL image like this. JoJan09:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems kind of late (sorry!), but I'll give my feedback here anyways: I like it, but the only thing that's bothering me is the font. It's not bothering me that much, but something about it I just don't like. Would it be possible to create another image with more standard font (i.e. Times New Roman or such) and compare it? I still can't finger what's bothering me, but I like it overall. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree about Multiple comparison, but I was thinking that if we're going to get people really interested again we should start off with a fresh slate. I would either wait a week, or if you're really excited about it maybe just put a new nomination up. In theory multiple comparison just finished being "collaboration of the past three months", so I'm not sure people will be too thrilled about it.
I was much impressed by your picture on leaf morphology. I wonder if you could also make such a drawing of the different types of radula (the "teeth" of a mollusk) for the article Radula. Without such an image, this article is hard to explain to an outsider. I've been looking in vain on the internet for a GFDL image.
A new drawing of the types of radulae and one of a schematic view of the mouth would greatly illustrate the article. Any thoughts ? JoJan14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your offer. I had the following in mind :
a first illustration showing a transverse view of the radula in the buccal cavity in a retracted state and then in a protruded state (with the radula in a different color to enhance its visibility), each time also showing the cartilaginous base, the odontophore protractor muscle, the radula protractor muscle and the radula retractor muscle.
a second schematic illustration with the seven different types of radula, with different colors for the central tooth, the lateral teeth and the marginal teeth.
I hope the links I provided, will give you enough guidance how to proceed. I know it is a technical and somewhat obscure matter, but it shouldn't be too hard to draw. I worked hard on that article and with these illustrations it would be complete. JoJan14:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've done it again ! This draft shows in a simple and informative way how how the radula works inside the buccal cavity. As to the placement of the muscles, there are small differences between the genera. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that. But I have two suggestions (if you could still alter slightly the picture) :
there should be a maxilla in the upper jaw, and a cartilage under the rasping part of the radula. Look for this on [2]. It is the letter B (B = Kiefer) and D (D = Radukakorpel) in that drawing.
at the entrance of the mouth, there is a continuous line between the upper part and the lower part, giving the impression that the mouth is closed. This black line should be removed.
I realize that it must have been hard for you to make this simplified schematic view of the buccal cavity. And I appreciate this. As to the second scheme with the different types of radula, the article Radula and the drawing on [3] should give you ample indications how to draw. JoJan15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cartilaginous base is indeed the odontophore. My mistake. But looking at the drawing again, could you alter the color of the "teeth" (perhaps a light gray...) ? JoJan19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Meekohi - Is Small World Network the current MCOTW? If so, it should be labeled and and advertised as that to get work going. Currently the nomination page says that the next COTW will be chosen on the 14th. If any article will be chosen between now and then, it will have less than a week available to work on it as a MCOTW. Ready to get my collaborate on, Debivort13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Debivort - currently there is no MCOTW, since the program was just restarted last Thursday. We'll pick the first new MCOTW (looks like it's going to be Small-world network) on Saturday, and from then on we'll have a MCOTW every week. I think we'll make an excellent article next week. Looking forward to getting my collaborate on as well ;)
Hi Debivort
Nice leaf morphology chart, and very informative. That made me think of something similar. A mushroom gill morphology chart would be very very welcome and you have the skill to make one. The type of gills is critical to determining mushroom species and words simply won't do to explain. The current article on gills is a stub and there must be a clear illustration of gill types if wikipedia is ever to be used for identifying mushrooms.
Jens Nielsen09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the chart is finished. I'm impressed, it looks very nice and it's exactly what we need. It can still be a bit improved though. The boletoid showing the pores could look more convincing, particularly the pores. Order of appearance could also be changed - subdecurrent right after decurrent, for example.
Where to put it? Mushroom hunting for a start, but as mycologists also need to identify mushrooms without being out to 'hunt' them, I think it should eventually find its permanent place in an article to be named 'mushroom identification' or similar. Eventually, all species pages should include information on gill type and hyperlinked to that diagram (or a small inset of relevant gill type would be highly educative). As I am still new to the mushroom pages, I'll think of where to link to it or put it. As a side comment, I sense a strong American POV on many mushroom pages. But not all grow on other continents, and all should be able to benefit from the information. Since I suppose you are north american, I can properly ask you this specific question: does your mushroom book mention anything about that Galerina could possibly be confused with Armillaria and Psilocybe? If so, which species are we talking about? My book about scandinavian mushrooms has no such suggestion, and particularly the galerina vs psilocybe seems very far off. Jens Nielsen08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a graphics-only version of Image:Leaf morphology no title.png that could be placed in Commons for use in other language Wikis? TIA, RickP19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I meant; thank you so much.
I uploaded it to commons and plan to use for the Hebrew wikipedia.
I saw your comment on how you were unable to save the leaf diagram as a SVG because of font rendering. I recently encountered this problem myself. It is because Wikipedia renders the svg into a png before displaying, but does not keep the original font. A way to fix this is converting the text to a path. Unfortunately I don't know how to do this in Illustrator (I use Inkscape). If you can't find out how to convert the text into paths, you can always send the file to me and I'll try doing it. (PS, great pic by the way.) DynaBlast
After you've converted the text into paths it should render perfectly on Wikipedia. (See a Before and After here.) The only downside is that it will be difficult for other people to edit the text. DynaBlast19:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been very busy lately. And then I have been pondering your question. I've colored the teeth on the chart in different colors, so as to distinguish them. But I don't want to put this (clumsy) attempt as an image in Wikipedia. Therefore, if you could send me an email (see toolbox : email this user), then I'll send you the image by email with some instructions. JoJan09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While trying to be the one to publish the 1,000,000th article I've added 6 Russula species including your taxobox. Since you have some proper English-language literature + maybe some information on US mushroom geography, please have a look if you can add something. Jens Nielsen23:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Wikipedia for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Wikipedia photographer and illustrator. I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Wikipedia and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an email interview? Thanks, — Fernanda00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | talk[reply]
Todays Featured Picture of the Bunsen Burner flame is brilliant, congratulations. What did you use in taking it? Loom9109:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a lot of interesting fungi pictures from your wiki pages.
I suggest to you to develope them on WikiCommons so they will be available to all..
thx --87.1.88.20416:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's reasonable. I removed it because it's generally not standard on pages with parenthetically disambiguated titles to link to the disambiguation page (e.g., Graph (data structure), Madonna (entertainer), Ace (tennis)). However, I don't feel strongly about this point, so I've restored (a standardized version of) the disambiguation link. —Caesura(t)15:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I thought your work was so illustrative and beautiful, that I have added it to the list of featured pictured candidates. Thanks for the wonderful work you do for Wikipedia. --HappyCamper02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I haven't taken a math class in almost 20 years, to create the blurb all I did was copy-paste the caption that was in the FPC nomination. Would you mind taking a look (at the date linked above) and copyediting it so that it might be understandable for non-mathematicians? Thanks. howcheng {chat}16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what we're aiming for on FPC discussions is consensus, but if we were to adopt a strict interpretation of consensus, we'd rarely promote any image. In fact, references to "consensus" on the FP tag were removed a month or two ago, replaced with something like "members of the community." It seems like no matter how excellent a given image is, there is always a contingent of people who are opposed, and no matter how poor a given image is, there is always a contingent that thinks it's great. So instead we've been using a 2/3 supermajority as a general guideline, taking the various comments into account. It's not consensus, but currently it's the only workable solution. -- Moondigger15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Coquina variation.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Just saw you were the person who did these. Although I do find loads of boxes frustrating I had intended using them when I had time as I have added a load of new fungi to Wikipedia (see my contributions). Been busy trying t get Stegosaurus featured. Will try some soon cheers. Cas Liber00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just had another idea as i was working on species lists for various mushroom genera and adding common names and some geographic localities - maybe the edibility icons could go next to the species in species lists as well.....Cas Liber01:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Telluride Panorama annotated metric.jpg listed for deletion
Thanks for uploading Image:Contre-jour detail.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reported the user to administrators. If you want to help you can make an additional comment there. Thanks for reverting since I didn't want to risk breaking 3RR myself. Gdo0100:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this. Its clear that Capsource1 has violated policy. An anonymous user reverted earlier today. I'll be sure to watch the page and revert if Capsource1 continues to post his unecessary information. Pumpkin Pi02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, redlink ones are ones which ain't got no pages yet. There are hundreds of species and I am not familiar enough with them to know which are synonyms of others etc. Note that some redlinks do have edibility icons :) Cas Liber07:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, where i know what they are I would, otherwise an unknown icon if the literature says they're unknown. I have some books.....Cas Liber06:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went for it and stuck 'em onto Amanita and Boletus pages. I took out the species I couldn't find out about. They're not exhaustive lists anyway. Only thing is, looking at 'em all together is the similarity in colour between choice, edible and inedible. Question is, what colours? My old guidebooks had a mushroom icon for edible and a mushroom with two lines 'X'ed over them for inedible and mushroom in parentheses for edible after cooking, one book had one skull for poinsonous and two for deadly, the other book (Haas) had white skull and black skull. cheers Cas Liber09:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Debivort!
I was wondering if you could specify your prefence (b/w the two versions) on the dragonfly compound eye FPC nom? Thanks, --Fir000208:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re FPC of HistMac.gif, I found out about the picture nomination by random wikisurfing! I think I've made comments that illuminate certain dark aspects regarding this picture and would like you to evaluate them and respond here. Thanks! •NikoSilver•11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a new version on FPC, which you might check out. It addresses the concerns voiced by the opposers. Greetings, --Janke | Talk15:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Pristella tetra1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The template you added to Mycena lists the genus as Marasmius. I assume this is a copying error; and are the characteristics correct for this genus? I haven't changed it; please update either the name or the other information as appropriate. Rigadoun (talk)21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this. You are right it was a copy error. All the generic genus characteristics for marasmius and mycena are the same except for the cap shape (convex / conical) as far as I can tell. It is fixed now. Debivort21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that the new ones are needed if there is more than one item in each criterion (mainly cap shape), and the other format can't support that. There is quite a bot of white space in the box, but making it narrower means it doesn't align nicely with the taxobox. Maybe on the left of the page instead (?). Depends hoe narrow it can be, only feasible on left if can be shrunk to 140px or less I guess. Sorry about delayed reply, just got back from a few days away....(and sifitng thru 500 emails..) cheers - Cas Liber12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You recently added mycoboxes to several articles including Psilocybe cubensis and other psychoactive mushrooms. Are these mushrooms poisonous in the sense that genuses such as Galerina or various Amanita are? It is fairly well agreed upon, I believe, that psilocybin mushrooms do not cause sickness (much less death), but rather an altered state of consciousness. Calling these mushrooms poisonous seems to be a point of view, albeit one supported by some authorities. However, there is no agreement in the mycological community, so far as I can ascertain, regarding the classification of these mushrooms as either poisonous or psychoactive in the hallucinogenic sense. Would it be possible to create a new category for the mycobox reflecting the edibility status of such mushrooms to something such as "psychoactive" or a similar term reflecting this? Wowbobwow1201:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to create a new category for the edibility of psilocybin mushroom species. I think that it would be simplest to call the category "psychoactive", since this term is (I believe) neutral yet inclusive of the full range of psychological effects. As for the accompanying image, I haven't figured out what would be appropriate. Any ideas? Wowbobwow1203:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the psychoactivity image you created is perfect. Thanks for adding it to P. cubensis, etc.; I'll go ahead and do the same to other Psilocybe and Panaeolus species for which it would be pertinent. Wowbobwow1201:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and changed all of the Psilocybe mushroom articles to edibility: psychoactive. However, when one clicks on edibility: psychoactive, it links to the mushroom poisoning article. I believe that linking to the psychedelic mushroom article would be more accurate, given the edibility category. Could you help me make this change? Wowbobwow1219:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Firsfron - I've been snooping through your Dinosaur efforts and am in awe. I was wondering you your effort wanted help in the form of illustrations? I enjoy tackling wikipedia requests and you can see the nicest examples here: radula, ascocarp, [5], and Symmetry_group. Let me know. Debivort20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Debivort,
Thanks so much for your nice note. Your message is like manna from heaven. Wikipedia has over 1,000 dinosaur articles, but only a hundred or so even have one illustration, despite the team's best efforts over the past year to collect photos.
One major issue is accuracy. Because dinosaur anatomy is an ever-changing field, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs has been hamstrung from the very beginning by outdated and inaccurate images. We're stuck using images from before 1923 in many instances, and while those are fine from an historic perspective, it would be great to have a modern illustration, too.
It is very difficult to find artists willing to put so much hard work into images, especially as a lot of the information is contradictory at times. I'm not sure if you are interested in illustrating dinosaurs, or stuff relating to dinosaurs, but there is a ton of work that has to be done, and even one image would be an improvement.
I'm absolutely delighted you'll be doing some illustrations, Debivort! I've reviewed your images, and they look really good. Illustrations like the ones you have done, but for dinosaurs, would be a huge boon to our project. When I was looking at the snail, it made me wonder if you could do something similar for a dinosaur? Like a cutaway, showing the innards. Much of dinosaur soft anatomy is speculation, based on living relatives and fossil impressions, since the organs don't normally fossilize. But skull cross-sections, or something along those lines, would be great. A Google search doesn't pull up much, but maybe you'll understand what the heck I'm talking about. If you'd rather not do that, you could, of course, illustrate any of the dinosaurs on the List of dinosaurs. Most of the articles have no illustrations whatsoever, and many that do only have pictures of the fossils themselves.
Some simple tips for illustrating dinosaurs include things like:
Make sure theropod dinosaurs aren't shown with pronated (palms downward) hands (a very common blunder in dinosaur illustration)
Make sure theropod dinosaurs are illustrated with feathers, if they're on the Feathered dinosaurs page, or closely related to these groups
Make sure theropod tails are depicted as fairly stiff, not snake-like, unless they are Herrerasaurids, which may not actually be theropods
Nodosaur tails don't get clubs, while other ankylosaurs do
Try to make sure whatever reconstruction you're using, it is fairly up to date.
Try to stay away from the dinosaurs in the Category:Invalid dinosaurs category, unless you are a glutton for punishment.
Thanks for your notes, Debivort. Diplodocus is one dinosaur we will want to send to Featured Article candidacy fairly soon. It would be nice if we had a skull-cross section (or a tail cross-section, or...), but, honestly, anything you could do would be great. I'm not sure if cross-section images like this are even available on-line, but that is one route. Additionally, it would be really nice if you could illustrate some random genera. Thank you. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review is the place to go for review of preliminary and final versions of the images. Yes, any illustration of theropods where the hand are curled downward ("bunny hands") is no longer considered accurate, at least by many/most paleontologists since some papers by Sereno in 1996. Back around March, we purged dozens of pictures that would otherwise have been acceptable. this, not this. They should be in a "shaking hands" position instead of "bunny hands", if that's more clear.[6]Firsfron of Ronchester04:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're quick, Debivort!
I couldn't find a decent on-line cross-section of a Diplodocus skull, and although I have a really nice dinosaur book with lovely skull (and body) cross-sections, there isn't one for Diplodocus. So, that idea is out the window (for now). Would it be possible for you to do, say, a nice scale model for Diplodocus, similar to the one shown on the Stegosaurus page? It would show a side-view of Dippy in comparison with a human. Could you do it? As far as dinosaur genera, you are more than welcome to sift thru the huge List of dinosaurs, but here is a brief list of dinosaurs for which Wikipedia has no images: Barosaurus, Riojasaurus, Lufengosaurus, Heterodontosaurus, and Lambeosaurus. There are a thousand others (literally), but these are, I believe, among the best-known, so it should be fairly easy to illustrate them. Feel free to contact me at any time; I really appreciate your efforts! Best, Firsfron of Ronchester07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Diplodocus size comparison2.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was possible to separate the stem placement terms (whorled, alternate, opposite, rosette, possibly perfoliate [maybe add decussate too?]) from leaf shape, because any shape of leave can be alternate, or whorled... "Disposition" would make a good header for that. Circeus13:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debivort, Thanks for your kind words. For Heterodontosaurus, sorry I've already done it (check on the image review page) but I am happy to let you do the others. I very much like your Diplodocus size comparison graph. Very neat. Will you be able to do something similar for other dinosaur genera ? Your Eoraptor in motion is cute too. Great work. ArthurWeasley17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no wishlist of the most wanted dino illustrations. You'll have to go through the List of dinosaurs and check each individual entries to see if image is missing. Check also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration page. This is where you could find a short list of dinosaur articles that people would like to have improved (you are welcome to vote). Size comparison charts would be nice for the next winner (looks like there is a tie between Iguanodon, Triceratops and Ankylosaurus). A sign up sheet for dino illustration is a good idea, you might want to propose it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs page. In the meantime, we could just let each other informed of our intentions. In the near future to-do list, I have Lystrosaurus (not a dino, already have a sketch), Cynognathus (not a dino), Agustinia, Scelidosaurus, Polacanthus, Tsintaosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Einiosaurus, Elasmosaurus (not a dino), Iguanodon, Irritator, Ornitholestes (redo), a few pterosaurs, and some prehistoric mammals, birds, different archosaurs and marine reptiles. I have a tendancy not to stick strictly to the list depending on the mood but I'll keep you informed and send you a note before starting a sketch of something not listed here ArthurWeasley19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coordinating efforts like this. I'm absolutely delighted at this turn of events: two artists illustrating the articles! Please don't stop illustrating dinosaur articles, though, Debivort! Even with a talented artist like Arthur, we are still woefully under-illustrated. We need your talents! :) Firsfron of Ronchester19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Amanita muscaria, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page
Hi Debivort! This [7] is the best reconstruction of Noasaurus out there, though since no other fingers are known it's hard to tell how/if the claw may have stood out. Masiakasaurus[8] is a close relative, so it may help you fill in the blanks.Dinoguy204:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were doing the drawing, I'd probably give it the outward-pointing teeth. However, there's no evidence of the jaws in Noasaurus, or any other noasaurid besides Masiakasaurus, and it's entirely possible that the latter's unique jaw adaptations were not shared by other noasaurids. so, it's up to the artist. Which do you like better? I'd support the inclusion of either version in the article :) Dinoguy220:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, am a bit incommunicado currently. Had a quick look and agree the link is tenuous at best. Only on dialup and have a load to do but the link on mycology was dead anyway. Agree that ditching was probably warranted/ cheers Cas Liber14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for changin my edit to the cameron crazies article. i understand why you did it. i just thought it would be interesting to put up there as i am a student at the cba. there's nowhere i can get a citation, and i knew i probably needed one anyway, i was reluctant to make the edit actually. thanks anyway. 68.38.167.1523:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've left some feedback for your Udanoceratops image. Hope I didn't come across as too critical. I always worry about that. :/
BTW, your edit summary here cracked me up. "Product placement" indeed. Actually, even though very few dinosaurs are known from Australia, Qantassaurus isn't the only example of an Aussie dinosaur named after a company: Atlascopcosaurus is another.
Thank you for your welcome note and pointing out that I had removed an earlier image. That was totally unintended - I am not sure now how it happened but I had some trouble getting images to sit well on the page and it must have occurred while I was doing this. Oops! Thanks so much for restoring it!!! John Hill04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Ceratosaurus size comparison.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Ceratosaurus size comparison.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You suggested I downsample this image I nominated. This has been done, but now the support is ambiguous - could you qualify your vote for/against the edit? Leon01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicOTalk | Sign Here01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Debivort, the images will have to be replaced by commons images. I do not seek any goodness in reverting the changes. I would say to make appropriate changes in the template to remove the non-english word. Could you make some changes in the template to solve this problem. I would request you for not reverting changes which will cause to restore the images which are already available on commons. Regards, Shyam(T/C)07:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. The image was available in svg format on commons with the same name. Someone has tagged the images to the different image name on commons which were not suitable to the transcluded template easily. Sorry to being bothered you. Shyam(T/C)06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your work on the Mycomorphbox. One thing it really needs, though, is more spore colors. "Brown" covers several distinctive and ID/taxonomically-important spore colors. (For example, purple-brown vs reddish-brown spore print is one of the main ways of telling Psilocybe from Galerina.) I suggest adding "purple-brown" (or alternately "blackish-brown", which is close to the same, or maybe a more general "dark brown") and "reddish-brown". (Keep "brown" for medium-brown colored spore prints.) – All the best – Peter G Werner06:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK there are no fungal Featured Articles on wikipedia at all? I've modelled this on the dinosaur collaboration which has yielded a few FAs. Please have a look and cast your vote and we'll try a concerted attempt at an FA.
Link here......Fungi Collaboration
OK, for the mycomorphbox colors, I'd add blackish-brown, reddish-brown, green (needed for Chlorophyllum molybdetes), and yellow-orange (found in some Russula). The name "salmon" you might change to "pinkish-brown" to reflect the range of such tones seen in the Entolomataceae and the Pluteaceae.
How embarrassing. I'm so used to sulphur being yellow that my fingers typed it even while my brain thought phosphorous. Thanks for catching that! TimVickers18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I logged in, I saw that the problem had already been solved. But then I started wondering, why aren't you an administrator yet ? In my opinion, you certainly fit the profile and it would make it much easier for you to deal with vandals. If you're willing, I can submit a request for adminship. You certainly deserve it. Just give me a sign and I will nominate you.
Knowing you as a trustworthy, high-quality contributor, I would have no qualms proposing you for administratorship. But now that I’ve been looking into your stats [9], things look a bit differently. You have made at this point a total of 1877 edits. This could be a serious obstacle for many voters (when I was nominated, I had already over 9,000 edits). Nominees with lower edit counts are less likely to succeed [10], but still have a small chance if voters are willing to take into account the quality of the edits. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. This will give you a good idea how the process works. There is no rush and it’s better to get it right the first time. Just let me know. JoJan09:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now another matter. Recently I wrote the article Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (saving a stub from a speedy delete). As this is a rather technical article, I searched for a fitting image on the Commons but I could find none. Then I thought of you. You have already provided the article Radula with fitting illustrations. I wonder I you could do the same for this article. The exterior links of the article give very good illustrations of the cervical vertebrae and how the operation is performed. Perhaps you can take a look at them and give me your opinion.
As to the requested colored illustrations, I was thinking along the following lines :
a drawing of the cervical vertebrae with the cervical discs, spinal cord, nerve roots and foramens
a drawing of a disc with the nucleus pulposus (jelly-like substance) and the annulus (outer ring) in the normal state
the same drawing but with the nucleus (slightly) bulging out and touching a nerve root
the same drawing as (1) but with seen in front and with the disc removed, so that one can see the nerve roots situated between the back of the (removed) disc and the spine. This would illustrate very well how a small bulge of the disc readily touches the nerve root and can cause this immense pain. JoJan19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The drawings with a top view of a vertebra and the disc are even better than I imagined. They can be used for any vertebra, cervical or lumbar. However I would suggest a deep yellow color for the spinal nerve (as to put emphasis on the nerve) and another color for the foramen (perhaps a very light yellow or an even better contrasting color). As for the requested drawing (1): take a look at [11] under the heading "Cervical pain". As to drawing (4) I think it's better to give at least one drawing of the surgical procedure as shown in Image C.. JoJan09:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should label the oblique view with the necessary elements : vertebra, disc, nucleus pulposus, annulus, spinal nerve, foramen, spinous process and spinal marrow. And again, it looks very good JoJan06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, the drawings are marvelous. One more small request : in Image:ACDF coronal.png, could you extract the left image as a copy (= the normal situation of the vertebra) and re-upload it as an independent image. This way it can also be used in anatomical articles about the spine and the vertebrae. And last but not least, upload all the images to the Commons. I would also suggest to upload as well all the drawings without text to the Commons, so that wikipedians in other languages can use them as well (by adding text in their own language). Well done and thanks ! JoJan09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. I placed the illustrations in different articles. I also put them in several categories in the Commons. JoJan13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say the image of the Burrard Street bridge is unfixable. I was wondering if you knew of how to fix it. I did some googleing, and the results looked promising. How would you usually go about fixing artifacts? -- Selmo(talk)03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Starry_night_ballancing_procedure.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hello... I saw your note regarding the Battlestar Galactica article. If you're referring to this edit, I believe that you may have misread the edit history. As my comment ("Undid revision 109341872 by 69.77.132.17 (talk) rm. trivia") states, I only removed some trivia from the article, in this case a note about a mention of BSG on The Office. This is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on avoiding trivia. Thethinredline's work on the "Theology" section hasn't been altered. --Ckatzchatspy20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TigerShark - thanks for responding so quickly to my request for admin intervention on User:65.197.95.190. Just for my curiosity, is the standard that a vandals being malicious after just coming off a block can be blocked again without warning? Thanks again! Debivort22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Whether a block should be applied without another warning is a little bit of a grey area but, in this case, the number of recent blocks combined with the fact that the new edits are all vandalism warrants an immediate block in my opinion. The block is for anonymous users only, so there should be no collateral damage. However in most cases another final warning is probably appropriate, and it is better to err on the side of caution. Cheers TigerShark22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new mycomorphboxes in the Gymnopilus luteofolius and Gymnopilus spectabilis articles.
I did have a question about them though - for both, you put the edibility as "poisonous or psychoactive". I have heard that they can be psychoactive or just bitter, but are you sure they can be poisonous? Where did that info come from?
I reverted your addition of McIlrath to that page. I appreciate that you attempted to source it (several people have tried to add him before without doing so), but unfortunately photos of him that appear to have two different-colored eyes aren't enough to satisfy WP:RS. Those require subjective interpretation, and it's possible that an effect is just a trick of the light, or a result of the application of specialty contact lenses (like Marilyn Manson wears), or a different condition entirely. What we need is a mainstream article that attributes the condition to him, or an interview where he talks about it, something like that. I've looked through a bunch unsuccessfully trying to find one, so if you could point one out, I'd be grateful. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to improve the article and possibly put it up for FA: however, there's only two of us adding content (me and User:Grant65) so I feel all at sea! User:Camptown suggested that a peer review might be the first step. Would you be interested? Cheers, Jasper3310:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a box for Tricholoma pardinum when I get a minute, but it's going to take a bit of research. This species doesn't seem to have as much on-line "scientific" (as opposed to casual) documentation as one might expect from its nasty reputation for causing severe GI distress. Some of the box entries may therefore be a bit tentative. If you find something there before I do, by all means feel free. -- Bill-on-the-Hill01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your example looks good, but rather than simply omitting a trait, it would be better to have an option for "don't know" or "awaiting research" or something like that. I haven't seen any papers stating that T. pardinum is mycorrhizal, for example, but I'd bet that it is, and a diligent search might turn something up. Leaving this as something "to be added" (maybe the best option) would tee it up as needing some help. Who "owns" the template and could do that?
BTW, I was intrigued to see references to Wilson Peak, El Diente and Mount Sneffels on your user page -- 14ering is a long-standing passion of mine, and El Diente is one of only 8 or 9 Colorado 14ers that I have not climbed, despite three attempts. I've toyed with improving some of the Colorado mountain articles, but there are only so many hours in a day ... -- Bill-on-the-Hill14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "To be added" is right, maybe represented by a question mark superposed on a broad, light green arrow. I'm not graphics-literate or I'd make one. Maybe you can do better.
Stuck at base camp once on El Diente due to weather; made a route-finding booboo another time; the third, I stared at the Mount Wilson-El Diente traverse after summiting the former and said "Nah..." Similar stories with Kit Carson, BTW; I've failed four times to get up that one, despite having climbed the Crestones. As for yours, I met my wife while climbing Wilson Peak, and later, she would summit Sneffels with me while pregnant (her, not me!). -- Bill-on-the-Hill17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debivort/Archive1#c-Rickjpelleg-2006-01-18T19:07:00.000Z-Non-annotated_"Leaf_morphology_no_title.png"?){kind=link}
![07:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debivort/Archive1#c-Raven4x4x-2006-01-20T07:39:00.000Z-Non-annotated_"Leaf_morphology_no_title.png"?){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leaf_morphology_no_title.png){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SuccessRatevsEditsatRfA.png){kind=link}
