Introvert

Image:Raven-marin-headlands 1694.crop.jpg

Hello!

Please explain exactly why you want an image to be deleted. --Saperaud 05:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the message! I asked to delete this image because I thought that its quality turned out rather poor... kind of blurred. It looked ok in my photo viewer but not in the browser.

Since I've tagged it for deletion right after the upload, this image must not have been in use at all.

What's your opinion, if I may ask? If it looks okay to you then please go ahead and un-delete it  :) As to me, I like it; just thought it's no good.

(the raven, by the way, was the size of a good Christmas turkey :O))

Kind regards - Introvert 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Weblinks

Please don't add weblinks to categories. --Saperaud 14:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Can/should external links go onto the article pages instead? (i.e. to Lassen Volcanic National Park). Or Commons doesn't want external links at all? I took the idea of adding those nps.gov links from Category:Yosemite National Park and I also added the nps link to the Category:Redwood National Park, earlier. I will clean this up, you don't have to; I also intend to clean up conflicting interwikies for Category:Yosemite National Park vs Yosemite National Park. Appreciate though if you point me to where can I educate myself on the guidelines or if there were previous discussions about how to deal with the categories, links, i-wikies in Commons. Regards - Introvert ^{talk ?en ?ru} 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing offical about that but weblinks in articles (not categories) are IMHO ok if they are really helpful. This mainly includes links to other free image archives with more stuff than we have. --Saperaud 23:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense -- and quite frankly, if I were to do it without an example of the Yosemite category which I monkeyed from, I would have worked with the "article" page to begin with. I believe that nps.gov provide much (most) of their contents in public domain so a link should be useful, I hope. Or if there are any concerns, please voice them :) thanks again - Introvert ^{talk ?en ?ru} 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the interwiki links to the language WPs are sufficient? Those will (or should) have links to nps.gov. The advantage of Stan Shebs' suggestion (see my talk page) is that it is applicable to most articles and categories on Commons, not just the National Parks. That makes it appealing to me. Also, it is a bit easier to maintain interwiki links than external links, over which we have no control. That said, I don't know why the NPS articles should not have both if that is what you prefer. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Echeveria vs Dudleya?

What's your basis for saying Image:Echeveria-gr-home.jpg is Echeveria? Jepson sez only Dudleya in the Sierras. Stan Shebs 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Stan! Well, I am no botanist... was best-guessing, and hoping and counting on other folk who know better to help identify exactly which plants those were :) I wouldn't argue nor wager on any of this, but to me it looked like for those particular kinds which I had pictured, the ones that grow up in Sierra on granites and those down on the shore cliffs in Marin, the names Echeveria and Dudleya were used interchangeably as synonyms. So I just picked the one name I liked better.

May be it all came out of my reading about Carl Purpus's collecting hikes in the Sierras in his published letters, e.g. here: ... "an other Echeveria, which is alltogether different from E. purpusii it grows on Granit and limestone rocks and has smaller leaves and stroh colored flowers ..."; this is the plant that has recently been described as Dudleya calcicola Bartel & Shevock.

Jepson (darn! :) indeed uses Dudleya only as the scientific name throughout, but the "never completed magnus-opus" http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/flora_index.html still has Echeverias on the list as well. Were all of the California Echeverias reindexed as Dudleyas? If so, if you are certain it should rather be "Dudleya", let's then change the descriptions accordingly, absolutely, and I can certainly re-upload the images with the correct names too. - Introvert ^{talk ?en ?ru} 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not enough of a botanist to be certain either way, I was hoping you knew. :-) If you believe Wikipedia, heh-heh, en:Echeveria says Mexico is northern edge of the genus' occurrence. Lack of Jepson writeups suggests that the index is just including old synonyms; in fact, the WP article mentions a bunch of synonyms that also appear as entries in the Jepson index. So Dudleya I think is the correct current genus, now just have to figure out species (I personally am massively backlogged on IDing last spring's pics, which actually includes a desert Dudleya I haven't been able to pin down.) Stan Shebs 13:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"If you believe Wikipedia..." I says... ;) do I? lemme see to that article heh ;) OK, what if, for now, I update my descriptions to read: Dudleya cymosa, synonym: Echeveria cymosa common name: Liveforever (when one doesn't know which common one is it, isn't "liveforever" the safest to go for?). Maybe someone'd help verify the id-ing sooner. Good luck with your work! (could your desert flower be dudleya saxosa - or perhaps it is the limestone dudleya calcicola? the one which also shows up in the Mojave region? there are a few pictures on Calphotos [1] in case you haven't seen them yet.) Thanks again for paying attention, cheers - Introvert ^{~? ?en ?ru} 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gold Glow rose photo is very good, eyes rest on it :) - Introvert ^{~? ?en ?ru} 01:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Stavanger-troll.jpg

File:Stavanger-troll.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Teofilo (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Arbat-BulatOkudzhava-Monument.jpg

File:Arbat-BulatOkudzhava-Monument.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Clarissy. 19:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)