This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

December 2011

Date on transferred images

Thanks, I reported this bug Bulwersator (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

FWS keywords

I fail to see what is accomplished by removing the FWS keywords. They are often too general but in the absence of further description they convey information about the image. Particularly the keyword ARLIS should not be deleted. Dankarl (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want them on certain images there's no reason not to restore them, but they can be replaced with text that actually describes intelligibly etc and can be found on the source page. I don't think I've removed any that looked useful, what does ARLIS stand for, and why does it need to remain in some form? —innotata 14:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A New Year for the DNB, and launch of "volume of the month"

See WT:WP DNB#Volume of the Month for a collaboration that I'm in the course of setting up. Everyone who signed up to the WikiProject for the Dictionary of National Biography is being notified, while there is still time to alter the way of working if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic marmot

The top level of review is overall structure of the article. Some concerns with overall structure were pretty well resolved in recent days, so I did not comment on then. The lead section is an important part of structure. I had what I considered to be a serious concern with the lead section and my long comment from last Thursday has not received any response or reaction. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you know I'm not the nominator, maybe I'll take a look though. —innotata 15:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis

Thanks for checking this list! Bulwersator (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generated also next list (I also regenerated first list but it may include things listed on User:Bulwersator/illustrations - animals 1/2/3 and rejected) Bulwersator (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on this, and moving images to Commons! I'll finish the illustrations now, and look at the maps in a week. Do you think you could do things like this for other languages? I expect the the German Wikipedia would be very worthwhile for English, in particular, from how many images I've found. —innotata 02:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, does the Polish Wikipedia try to have exactly the same images in the taxobox as the English Wikipedia. If so, I had better stop adding different images of similar quality to taxoboxes for a taxon on different language versions of Wikipedia. —innotata 02:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

de:Benutzer:Bulwersator/Echo/Images/Animals Bulwersator (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"does the Polish Wikipedia try to have exactly the same images in the taxobox as the English Wikipedia" - no, but there is nothing wrong in the same image on all wikipedias Bulwersator (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India philatelic items on Commons

I see that you have changed the author and licence on some items to India Post and India PD licence. I have changed some back as this is incorrect. The items were produced by the British government for use in India and are covered by the UK Government PD licence. India Post didn't exist when these items were created. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PD-India license is correct; they were published in India (produced by a branch of the British Indian government, which India Post sort-of says was called "India Post Office", will check). Indian copyright law (that of the source country), not U.K. copyright law, then is relevant on Commons. —innotata 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Crown Copyright up to Independence and Indian copyright thereafter. Crown Copyright includes colonies and dominions of the British Crown such as India. The item does not have to have been produced or published in the UK for that to apply as Crown Copyright applies worldwide to items produced by or for the British Crown. (I think you will find in any case that this item was probably produced in the UK not India.) What is the point of changing this since anything pre 1957 is expired Crown Copyright worldwide? Are you going to change every colonial era Indian stamp to PD India? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure Indian copyright law, in its current form, amended from what was in place at independence is relevant, not U.K. crown copyright. I'll ask at the village pump on Commons. —innotata 19:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that both are acceptable licences, I just don't see however what the point is of messing with files that already have a licence that is perfectly fine. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD templates aren't licenses we choose, they are descriptions of what the copyright status is and they should be correct. —innotata 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the item was produced under crown copyright, which it definitely was, and that has expired, which it has, why try to replace the licence at all? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally got around to asking, at commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Government_works_from_British_India. —innotata 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Olympic marmot

Hi! A few months ago I wrote a lot of the Olympic marmot article and put it up for GA review, and I remember that you helped out a lot on it! My reviewer finished writing down all her suggestions and as I fixed things, she put the plus signs on the review template, but it's been about a month since she's been on the review page and I've addressed all of her concerns so I'd like for it to reach GA. I don't know if I'm allowed to request another person to finish the review if I already have a reviewer, but I've written on her talk page about it already and haven't gotten a response. I initially started working on the article for my AP biology project and that's been over for a while now, but it still bothers me that I worked so hard and it still hasn't gotten to GA! If there's anything you can do to help me get it finished, that'd be awesome and I'd really appreciate it. But if there isn't, no big deal! Just thought I'd ask someone more experienced on Wikipedia about it :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're supposed to do, but I'd just ask other reviewers (I will in a few days if you don't and Orlady doesn't return). I can help with the article, I'll fix any further issues that come up at the review if you can't, and I'll see if there's anywhere else I can improve the article later (I think it should be fairly easy to make it a featured article). —innotata 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article passed GA just after you posted around. —innotata 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, good work on the article. (I think it may be the best to come out of your class this year.) —innotata 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Amphibians and Reptiles in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Minneapolis History Edit-a-thon at Minneapolis Special Collections 2/25/2012

Thanks for all your help yesterday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdougla (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you for adding the images of Paige and enhancing the content. The Special Collections Librarians will be pleased. This is now a worthy source of information for Women's history month! Mdougla (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Punjab district map.png

Please have a look, the image is about the districts of Indian Punjab/East Punjab - in other words, the district map of Indian Punjab, but it's an outdated map that not includes the newly born/created districts: Pathankot district, Fazilka district and Barnala district. But as it's used on many pages in english wiki and globally, it's providing an incompelete info. Want you to decide better. TariButtar (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you want and not my sort of thing. You can edit the map and upload it as an update or a derivative, or ask someone to do this at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. —innotata 16:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mabeth Hurd Paige, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Lazarus Taxa

Hi Innotata. I am wondering if you could help me understand the new category? I thought a link to an explanation of the phenomenon Lazarus taxon would be appropriate for species. I see you added taxa, which would be plural of taxon, and which makes sense, but how do we go about explaining the phenomenon? I am a bit confused because I have never made a category page before. Some help would be appreciated. Also, do you think a link to extinct species is appropriate? Thanks. --Jsderwin (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you want, Wikipedia:Categories should answer your general questions about categories. —innotata 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's all in place it makes sense to me. --Jsderwin (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1932 Hillman Wizard image

Hi innotata, I have emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with evidence of the copyright owner releasing the image into the public domain. Is there anything else I need to do? Yonobarn (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. You should have added the template {{OTRS pending}}, so people would know you'd sent an email (I think it makes it easier for the people who check the e-mails too). I've done that now. —innotata 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cape cobra

I nominated the Cape cobra article for "Good Article" status, but I haven't had anyone review it yet. I'm trying to get another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles to review it. If you have the time or the will please let me know. RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't want to do this now. I might look at the article and make a few comments. —innotata 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you see any little easily fixable problems that I've missed in the prose, please do make an effort to fix it. You don't have to, of course but it would be appreciated. RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 22:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innotata, you'd have found that this editor's prose is awful. Also, they're indefinitely blocked: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR. Keep this SPI in mind: the user is addicted to GA reviews of snakes. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peachella, I get no access

Hi, You wrote to me I could free access the Peachella article on the page I provided the link for in my query. I thanked you, and declared case solved, before having the article. Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I keep running into the paywall. I feel a bit silly to have to ask, but what am I doing wrong? Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely could download the paper at the time, from a home computer, but now I get the paywall too. I probably can send you the paper from a library, but I won't be at one soon, so you should ask if others can. —innotata 23:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching this on Google, and it looks like [1] is a free copy of the paper posted by the author. I haven't checked, though, since downloading is really slow today. —innotata 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've got it. Thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.