User talk:Calibas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Calibas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Gizza^Chat ^© 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libellula saturata

Hi Calibas, could you please upload your photo of the Libellula saturata to the commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload) also, because I would like to use it for the German Wikipedia (de.wikipedia.org). Thank you verry much. --de:Benutzer:Morray 11:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--85.181.115.43 06:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please make your butterfly snaps available on Wikimedia commons

Hi Calibas, Thanks for the Pipevine Swallowtail photo. I was trying to get one in vain last week. Listen, perhaps you should shift all your photographs to Wikimedia Commons where everyone can see them and use them. We dont quite know how to locate images here in Wikipedia. I sort of shepherd the Swallowtails in particular and butterflies in general and I would love to see your pipevine and tiger swallowtail pictures uploaded in Wikimedia Commons and enrich the Papilionid collection there. If you would like me to do it for you, please drop me a line at my talk page. Do have a look at some of the Indian butterfly action at :-

Regards, AshLin 12:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conium page

Hi Calibas, thanks for the heads up. I notice that on the disambiguation page, "poison hemlock" points to Conium. There are other plants named hemlock there as well, which the Hemlock Society has nothing to do with. Being a right-to-die advocacy group, they takes their name specifically from Conium maculatum, which redirects to the genus. And of course, the name is an allusion to the popular understanding that Socrates chose to drink hemlock and die a noble death (in comparison to exile), and the Socrates story is discussed at Conium as well. All of this suggests to me that the Conium article is an appropriate place for the link. Are you sure I'm wrong? — Coelacan | talk 04:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a vote on your Shahak recommendation

For your information: Talk:Israel Shahak#Suggestion for vote: Replacing the Praise, Criticism and Accusations sections with a short summary. Itayb 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swallowtail Image

The swallowtail picture that you put on the Pipevine Swallowtail page is not a pipevine swallowtail, I'm pretty sure that's a black swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes). This page http://www.dallasbutterflies.com/Butterflies/html/black.html has info on how to tell them apart.

Oh good call thanks for showing me that site. Your right it was a Papilio polyxenes not a pipevine. Im off to change that right now. Thanks again. --IvanTortuga 01:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hemlock disambiguation

Hi there. I've been doing a little digging, and going through the pages which link to Hemlock, and it seems that there's a roughly even split: In the US (and probably Canada?) the commonly expected meaning is that of the tree. In the rest of the world, and in an historical context, the commonly expected meaning is that of the poison and the shrub. So, I agree with moving the disambiguation page back to Hemlock, and will do so shortly. I'm also going to restructure the page so that the main focus is on these two most common uses on the disambiguation page. It would probably be an idea to go through the pages linking to Hemlock and link them to the correct articles, too. -Kieran 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Arg. Moving it seems not to be so simple, since I edited Hemlock to point to Conium. I've put a move request on the page to ask an admin to come and perform the move (and preserve the edit histories). If no-one disagrees, this should be sorted out in a few days. It wouldn't hurt if you noted your support for the move on the talk page. -Kieran 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace links

In general, Wikipedia does not permit links to "social networking" sites such as myspace. An exception seems that for notable musicians who have a myspace site it is typically listed along with their official website. In this case, it may be that the movie is notable enough for its own article. Do you think so? If so, I'd suggest creating an article for the movie, putting the link there where there could be no argument about its appropriateness, and then link to the movie article from Kumari, preferable from some text about the movie, or from see also. Finally, you might want to read WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. Putting a new link at the top of the list rather than the bottom makes it appear as if the addition is intended to be promotional. IPSOS (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting a rethink

Hi Calibas,

Thanks for your inputs in the discussion. Nice to see you in the WikiProject. Last we interacted was in the case of Pipevine swallowtail a year ago. Why dont you join us in the WikiProject? North American Lepidoptera are very badly off. We need people to work on them.

We were looking to reach consensus in WikiProject Lepidoptera so as to make things consistent, both for editors and users. Your present point of view is that of status quo. The status quo, while reflecting diversity, prevents us administratively in adding value to the WikiProject which solely exists for development of articles for the user. I have mentioned some facts in my latest post which are indicative of the direction we want to go. Lists which are consistent showing scientific names, common names and synonyms, which the normal user expects as appendices in an encyclopaedia. This is at present not possible under the present rule. I assure you that this step will lead us to develop articles in a better way. Since the change can come through consensus only, please give us a chance. No other WikiProject has tried it before. If we fail, and I am confident we wont, our project is still an infant so that reversion is possible. I wish I had your faith in bots, but this very problem of lack of consistency in guidelines has messed up the efforts of Polybot which has created a lot of articles all requiring cleanup. If bots are to work, they need reasonably simple guidelines. That is what we are trying to get in place.

Since our way forward is blocked by your dissent, could I request you to go along with us as a special case on this ssue and help us get the WikiProject progressing faster.

Yours in good faith. Ashwin

Thanks for your post. Im in the process of trying to explore how your concerns and Neil's could be addressed. I would get back to you later on this. For your information. Thanks, AshLin 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Lepidoptera

Hi Calibas, welcome to the WikiProject. It has been formed to improve the articles as well as give a uniform look and feel to them, ie, to help Wikipedia become encyclopaedic. Please do explore all the Wikipages. Do feel free to ask for any clarification or help on the Project Talk page. The WikiProject is a small and relatively new WikiProject. Your participation is valuable. Do help us to help you. Regards, AshLin 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Calibas, welcome

[edit] See of Canterbury

The concept of an Episcopal see is known everywhere in the world where there are bishops. The use of the term "see of Canterbury" in relation to the union of the Anglican Communion is important as it must be verbably equal to the Roman Catholic equation of "communion with the see of Rome". I am an ugly American and we know about the see of Canterbury, it is not U.K. exclusive. Cheers, -- SECisek 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common FP candidates/removal of my picture

Hi Calibas, I read your comment about what Salar de Uyuni actually was on delisting page. Just wanted to let you know that Salar de Uyuni is quite particular as a salt flat. Because of his position behind the Andes it is covered with water one month a year becoming a giant mirror. You can see this effect on some of my pictures here. That's why it looks strange during the day and much more strange during sunset. --LucaG 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Whitethroatedmonitor.jpg

Please try add your picture to categories, then people can find it! Thanks --195.199.141.214 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Animals

You showed interest in a WikiProject Animals here, so I thought I'd let you know that a formal proposal has been added at the WikiProject Council. Please add your name if you are still interested. Thanks J. Hall • ^(Talk) 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Animals has been created. Feel free to come on over and add yourself. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 06:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cocoon (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cocoon (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Cocoon. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 03:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cocoon

Hey there.

Nice idea to rename Cocoon to a disambig, but when you do something like that you need to move the article, not copy then paste its contents, otherwise the revision history gets mixed up and that's a big GFDL no-no. I've tagged the disambig for speedy delete so the correct move can be done. — Coren ^(talk) 03:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Livinggoddessmovie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Livinggoddessmovie.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonia axyridis

Dear Calibas: sorry for going against policy. The reason for doing so was the same reason why the article was moved to its new title in the first place, namely that the creature has so many English names that there isn't a standard one; this is exemplified by early web-based news report when it hit UK shores. It appears that Asian Lady Beetle is in current US usage, but the Brits have adopted Harlequin Ladybird. That said, I'm not one to go against style policy... cheers—GRM (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to re-edit the article to take out the use of the scientific name, but I am not going to be able to do that until next month—GRM (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Calibas: Please go ahead and change as you see fit. Please note, however, that you will get minimal milage out of "harlequin" except as "harlequin ladybird" (15,200 hits on Google general, plus 32 on Google Scholar, cf. 7 on Scholar for "Asian lady beetle" or "Asian ladybug"), as that's the term we use in UK English. Always good to "banter" with someone on the other side of "The Pond" :-) —GRM (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"All is fair in love and war"! —GRM (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PowerStation2.svg

You are right. The reheater is number 21, as per the key above, which is what the text description below should say. The image is on the Commons, so I have changed it there. Thanks for pointing it out. — BillC ^talk 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of animal pictures, articles

I just wanted to write back and thank everyone who's participated in the discussion about what kinds of animal pictures fit the requirement of encyclopaedic value, with specific reference to head shots, notably of birds; and also about whether the inclusion of some graphic information should be compulsory at FAC (distribution maps, various depictions of the animal).

I'm sorry that the discussion became derailed by User:Fir0002. I'll adhere to WP:AGF for the time being.

I thought I would sum up what we discussed:

Head shots can be useful for birds that have distinctive colour markings or other features on the head, but makes less sense for others (Totnesmartin)
Head shots are necessary when species are only distinguishable by their cranial morphology (Dinoguy2)
Head shots are not of interest outside Craniata (Dinoguy2)
MeegsC brought up the term "soaring" as a better description of where flight silhouettes would be useful; Casliber later referred to "raptors and seabirds" (I checked my bird books (n=4), and I see silhouettes or semi-profile views of the flying bird used in a much wider range of taxa, including ducks, pigeons, herons, cranes, storks, swallows, swifts, and probably others that I didn't memorise)
Jimfbleak expressed the opinion that there can be no rule where exceptions exist. (I disagree. Rules could allow for exceptions, which just means we only have to discuss the exceptions, not every other case as well.)
Jimfbleak said it may be better to use sparrows or pigeons for the size comparison. (I disagree: Not everywhere that has internet has sparrows and pigeons, and house sparrows at least are different sizes in different places)
Jimfbleak expressed desire for restricting FPC to animals in the wild, and allow captive shots only for domesticated species.
Casliber supported mandatory distribution maps
Casliber opposed size comparisons for plants (I'm guessing this was pre-emptive, as nobody had proposed size comparisons for plants)
I then suggested that a mechanism could be created for WikiProjects to set up their own definitions for excellent articles, and these could be showcased aside from the traditional Featured Articles and TFA; this proposal was mostly ignored by subsequent comments
Firsfron expressed concern that there wouldn't be enough illustrators to create the required illustrations and raised further exceptions (which I regard as irrelevant because the proposal already allows for special cases to be considered differently)
Firsfron suggested that if anything other than a distribution map was made mandatory, an illustration of a skull might be the best thing
Sabine's Sunbird seemed to oppose distribution maps being mandatory on the basis that they took effort to make (I'm unsure that this is correct, and was left wondering what the HBW size comparisons were)
Calibas was against "rules" (I don't see how we can carry on without some of the policies and guidelines we have)

In conclusion, most concerns were to do with allowing for exceptions, which is already the case in all guidelines I'm aware of, including the proposals discussed here.

To return to the original proposal, nobody has been able to make a strong general case for head shots in birds or any other larger taxon, a finding I interpret as meaning my personal guideline is sound. I hope others may find parts of it useful and adopt them. If you have any further comments on the FPC, FAC, or WikiProject content creation proposals, please leave them on my talk page. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

"G7" means that the author or uploader requested deletion. In this case, you were the only person to upload or edit this image, and you tagged it as follows: "{{db|redundant, no longer used in an article}}". If this was in error, feel free to re-upload. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ethics of eating meat

Hi - I changed that to "would be appalling if exhibited by humans" rather than "are appalling..." because whether people are appalled or not is cultural. It seemed to me that saying "natural behaviors are appalling..." is POV, since, if they are natural behaviors it would take something cultural to make them appear to appalling. Sorry - it's not terribly clear. If you can figure out a better way to put it, go ahead; or if you really think the previous version was better, go ahead and change back. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Image:Castle in Ogrodzieniec - 59.JPG

Thanks. I have GIMP, but I don't know what to improve and images, and how. For example, I'd have never thought that contrast needs improving, and that the Curves option is the one to do it. Do you know if there is some tutorial out there I could follow to get those skills? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)