User talk:Easchiff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Mark Lombardi
Hoi: I noticed some good edits to Mark Lombardi, one of my favorite artists. Out of curiosity, do you have any particular interest in him or were you simply improving an unfortunately neglected article? --Gwern (contribs) 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am quite interested in Lombardi. I stumbled onto his work at Pierogi in Fall, 2001, and talked to Joe Amrhein there. I was peripherally involved in bringing his exhibit to Syracuse University, and I had the honor of meeting some of his family then. I think the article could use a little work, but for now I just wanted people who stumbled onto it to be able to get a quick impression of his art. Apparently, book covers are "fair use" as far as copyright law goes.EAS 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey, that's pretty neat: I'm afraid I only stumbled lately onto him through a NY Times article, but you were actually involved and met the various personages! I must say, I do envy you, as what is only a book and a few articles and obituaries for me is living breathing reality and memories for you. Out of curiosity, do you happen to know what happened to Lombardi's papers? (There were a few details with regard to the World Finance Corporation I haven't managed to track down).
- As for fair use, yeah, book covers in this context especially would definitely satisfy fair use. In this case, it not only illustrates the book, but also his artwork. --Gwern (contribs) 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barilla
Hi Easchiff,
You proposed deleting Barilla. That probably won't pose any problems. However, proposed deletion usually takes five days. If a page move is noncontroversial, you can request speedy deletion and get things done more quickly if you like. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion has more information (see General Criteria #6).
Best regards,
Fg2 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fg2 - Thanks very much for the help; I haven't proposed a deletion previously, and wanted to be careful about protocol. I think I'll go ahead and wait a few more days. Although this deletion shouldn't be controversial, I haven't explicitly contacted the people who created the original article (basically a stub) that I moved to Barilla Group.EAS 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chordariales
The Phaeophyceae page is not a complete article, but just a list of orders and brief information. As such, all orders should be left in, unless and until a complete article with a discussion of molecular taxonomic revisions is included. Please put Chordariales back in, as the latest research showing it is paraphyletic is not wholely resolved--or if it is include this note. KP Botany 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure; I'm certainly not expert on the taxonomy of algae. Is there an article explaining the issues here? I was presuming that AlgaeBase was authoritative. (All this because kelp didn't originally refer to any particular type of seaweed at all...)EAS 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- AlgaeBase is a superb resource, however it is not taxonomically authorative for current algal phylogenies, and it doesn't explain who/what it used as the authority for its choice of taxa, and sometimes it mixes systems, and it leans heavily towards some of the controversial taxonomies (which are probably right, imo, but it's not about that). I am writing up the brown algae using textbooks and what on-line resources I can find, but have reached a slump on it. Please feel free to do anything and everything you can, as you have done, by adding information from and the reference to AlgaeBase on all articles. If you can get some pictures, that would be great also. I believe that Chordariales has been reduced to a family and subsumed, along with one of the other orders into a third order. However, for now, I would like it left so that there are links to all the orders, so I can find them when I do a move. Also, for now, until there is a firm taxonomic discussion it should be left as is. I am writing up the taxonomy from Lee, and some journal articles. If you're interested I will post links to some of the articles that are on the web, but not all of the ones I am using are. Still, if you can find articles on the orders, in general, their introductory and discussion content should be sufficient for Wikipedia articles. Let me know what you need.KP Botany 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I may try to locate pictures for some of the species (originally characterized as Fucus) that were burned to make kelp (the form of soda ash). You may want to look at the Fucales article, where I also made some changes in the taxobox based on AlgaeBase. There seemed to be a list of genera there that were given as subdivisions of an order. Sure looked wrong to me, but I think you'd know better. Incidentally, I have some curiosity about the biochemistry of these species. It's anomalous for land plants to have a high concentration of sodium in their cells, but I gather that this isn't true for algae. I've written what I know about land plants in the Salsola soda article I've been working on. Cheers EAS 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, I would like to restart the WikiProject on protists (Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists) as these articles really need some work. Yes, the biochemistry is interesting. I'm reading up on the fucoids right now. They're rather complex organisms, not quite so easy to dismiss as some seem to think. I'll look at your articles, and yes, soda ash images would be great. I'm going to throw a photograph of some ice cream on the Rhodophyta page, I swear. KP Botany 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Image:GreenLakesSPap04.jpg
You marked up the image Image:GreenLakesSPap04.jpg, I think because it didn't appear that anything linked to it.
Actually, the article Green Lakes State Park does link to it. I have no idea why this doesn't show up when one checks with "What links here." Possibly some slight formatting problem in the Green Lakes State Park article?EAS 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, I marked it to be transwikied to Wikimedia Commons, because it's been released under the GFDL. I mispelled the permission template, but I have since fixed that. Bastiq▼e demandez 13:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
