Last modified on 25 January 2014, at 00:38

User talk:Curtis Clark

Return to the user page of "Curtis Clark".

Image:Hordeum murinum callus at tip of spikelet cluster SEM.jpgEdit

Wow. Nice photo. :) --Maveric149 21:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dicentra chrysostoma 2004-05-17.jpgEdit

Hi Curtis,

Dicentra chrysostoma is not listed at www.itis.usda.gov, www.efloras.org or www.ars-grin.gov. Also google returns just your upload. Could you please enlighten me?

tia,

TeunSpaans 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I get for relying on memory. It should be Dicentra chrysantha.--Curtis Clark 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How does one move or rename an image?--Curtis Clark 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Never mind; I looked it up.--Curtis Clark 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Kind requestEdit

Hi Curtis,

I usually seem to upload yourt photos with a family category. If everyopne did, thiw would create very large categories - some families like en:compositae have over 10.000 species. It would be great if you could take the trouble to create pages for them, when people write articles on a wikipedia they generally browse through the article names, not through all the images. For an example, see Emmenanthe penduliflora.

tia, TeunSpaans 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always realized that leaving it in a family category is not a good long-term solution, but the idea of a species article as a desired resting place is one that seems only now to be gaining wide support. I'll certainly do this in the future.--Curtis Clark 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

InvitationEdit

Hi again,

you might be interested in Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life

TeunSpaans 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting; thanks for the link. I'll look into this more when I have time.--Curtis Clark 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding links to species articlesEdit

I don't see the point to adding a link to a species article to an image of that species. If it is in the article, the article will appear in the list of the pages that link the image. If it's not in the article, the link is somewhat misleading.--Curtis Clark 13:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that is easy to explain, it seems most of the photos that I have been looking at are in the Category page. The one's that are duplicated in the article page I am deleting the duplicate off the Category page, also, many do not have an article page SO in order for me to create a new article page I have to put the link on the photo (as you mentioned) in order to use the information and cut and past the Horticultural and Botanical headers from the existing articles to create a complete, new species article. Does this make sense. Let me know if this is what you are talking about. WayneRay 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
No, sorry, it still doesn't make sense. If I type a nonexistant name into the search box and hit "Go", one of the options is "There is no page titled "Nonexistant name". You can create this page." Then I can add anything to it that I want. Removing the cat from the image makes sense, but I don't see the reason for the other changes.--Curtis Clark 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is what I meant in a long about way, apologies. I guess it was just for me as a back up, I can go and remove the links, I have only done a 100 or so corrections so it won't be hard. Thanks for contacting me. I am presently scanning hundreds of my Botanical photographs and will have to watch what I do from now on. WayneRay 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

(Just noticed this.) There is another reason to have the links, which is vandalism backup. If the species article is blanked, then the combination of link *to*, but no link *from*, tells you something is wrong, in fact sufficiently precisely to automate. Stan Shebs 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

Curtis,

I added some categories, Flora of California, the plant's family and genus, when it exists already, to some of your photographs (with some help), to try to make Wikimedia a more useful tool for free-to-use California natives. KP Botany 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad dreams, comedy or whatEdit

I am being blocked on english wikipedia and unable to write there except to my talk page. I have some idea about physics teachers and mathematics teachers -- my favorite two physics teachers -- one was two years older than me and had a degree from an ivy league college and the other, I can show you a somewhat current photograph of him and his lego dulcimer. To say that it is the real people that I like the most in my studies is to make a huge understatement.

I found a stash of photographs that included some interesting images from B.Nord.!! That was similar to finding your name there also, but different as he seems to be both a character and a parenthesis in a lot of renaming. Perhaps a statement which is more about how the years and experience grows....

In that stash are where the bad dreams or the comedy were/are. One of the images was probably taken in Chile and there is a sign over it with a social security number (one of the numbers is out of the view). Another one has a wrapped package behind it. I left a snarky message at the gallery for that abbreviate (what is the word for an honor like that?) on an image which seems to be mislabeled that is in the collection. I haven't had javascript enabled to see if the botanist has gotten back to answering it.

In the end, I believe that I will still love the little plants that grow naturally above all the rest. I understand that the 'growing naturally' idea will be disputed until that end also, but that is not really what I meant by the statement.

Mostly, a sincere thank you, especially for that TWDG thing. -- carol (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot on English wikipedia with the spelling problems -- the bot can be told that if a taxonomy box exists on the page to not correct anything in italics very simply. -- carol (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Plant Navigation TemplatesEdit

I have been working embarrassingly diligently on making it easy to add species categories and get them into a somewhat uniform presence here. With all of the software writers here, it should be interesting to see if a bot is written who will generate the missing genera pages and the associated talk pages with the instructions. Yesterday, I got the Euasterids I families ready for the bot. The templates make some interesting (in a database kind of interesting) categories. Category:Genera of Asteraceae is one of those, if the templates are used, that gets filled automatically.

One of the problems with not having even empty genera categories is that the upload software will not suggest it. So when the empty ones exist, they might get populated.

I have been much more enthusiastic about accomplishing this, which is perhaps 90% a task that a software can do just as well or better -- but that 10% where it can't be scripted. Like when the genus name is an existing category for something else. Making it work for the three different systems that are used right now on the wiki is also kind of interesting -- more interesting than 99% of television and even more interesting than that much of what they call "life" here in California (especially when compared with what I had seen/wanted for myself).

Interesting templates {{Stifftioideae}} splits into tribes and genera. The templates work with just the genera name even when it is shared by another category Wilsonia is from the tribe Cresseae is an example of this. Here, the category already exists for a bird. For plants both in the {{genus}} templated listing there and in the {{Cresseae}} template the addition of the family name is just managed.

Just the clean up alone has been good for things here, in my opinion. User:Rocket000/Sandbox has a list, all of the red links there used to be redundant categories that were combined. There is another list User:Multichill/Sort categories awaiting the bot that will take the gallery name and make it into a category (further clean up from the combining of the redundant categories). All plant categories who have shared names now use the family name in parenthesis to separate them from whatever else has the category name.

The bot I am waiting to see written or (to me the sad part a sadness which is due to all of the people here who write software) I can write this: Commons:COMBotBot which has the list of categories with lists of genera whose categories can be created using existing templates.

I am a little concerned about the integrity of the information I have access to, although the same thing can be said about text books and other books with that kind of information. I am trying to use "sorting characters" like a space for APG II family, subfamily, tribe and a @ for antiquated family names and > for genera which is in the family but not in a subfamily in Cronquist. Using the templates makes it all uniform that way.

Oh, and Category:Species needing images is a category that I am using when I need to make a category to make sure the template works. Category:Genera needing images is also being used, it just isn't created yet -- if you click through, there are genera there and that should be filled when the bot makes the genus categories -- okay, I haven't been as consistent in using that one but there are so many hollyhock and rose photographs and a list of images that are missing is in many ways, a good list to have until all of the species have images....

I do not know how many others share my idea that commons can also be managed like a database, I think it makes more sense for the image area than it does for the article areas (commons or wikipedia's). It would be nice if someone with some experience were to look at this stuff. -- carol (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm happy to see people tackling taxonomic categories, and I agree that content can be managed like a database, I know from experience that databasing taxa is complex. I've been following the discussion here, and I agree that multiple systems of categories are problematic. The issue is deep-seated: Every taxon can have multiple circumscriptions, leading to an effectively infinite number of possible trees. By restricting it to a small number of systems, one might think that you'd avoid such issues as including Cronquist's Papaveraceae in APGII's Ranunculales, but no single system includes all levels from domain to species, so there's always some synthesis going on. I think Hesperian's point about either picking a system or having separate categories for each circumscription sums up all the reasonable possibilities, and I concur that picking a system (or even a synthesis of systems, since no one system covers all levels) is the most useful solution.
Nevertheless, it's wonderful to see the broader need for categories being tackled.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Eschscholzia californica Goldmohn.jpgEdit

Hi, bitte noch die Bildbeschreibung und Kategorisierung berichtigen, umbenannt ist das Bild bereits. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Getan, danke.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Curtis,

I am urgently trying to get in contact with you regarding you image of the Eucalyptus globulous. We would like to purchase the rights to use this for an internal values piece. I need a high resolution version for it if we are to proceed with it for this use.

Could you please email me on jennifer@brandmatters.com.au as soon as possible to advise whether this is possible and organise payment and the original high res photo (hopefully it exists in high resolution)>

Many thanks Jennifer

urgently trying to get in contact regarding purchasing rights to use this imageEdit

Hi Curtis,

I am urgently trying to get in contact with you regarding your image of the Eucalyptus globulous. We would like to purchase the rights to use this for an internal values piece. I need a high resolution version for it if we are to proceed with it for this use.

Could you please email me on jennifer@brandmatters.com.au as soon as possible to advise whether this is possible and organise payment and the original high res photo (hopefully it exists in high resolution)>

Many thanks Jennifer

Picture of the Year voting round 1 openEdit

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Photo:Eriogonum cinereum leaves and inflorescences2003-04-08.jpgEdit

Hi Curtis,

I believe this photo of E. cinereum is actually E. crocatum or similar. E. cinereum has pale pink flowers rather than bright yellow ones. Las Pilitas Nursery has some pretty good, canonical shots of this plant: http://www.laspilitas.com/nature-of-california/plants/eriogonum-cinereum

-Annelisa

I was relying on the nursery i.d.; I don't remember its source, but I can ask. When it flowers this year, I'll run it through TJMII and figure out for sure.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 AnnouncementEdit

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.