User talk:Mbz1/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mbz1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Mak (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Very nice images, consider using Wikicommons

Hello and welcome, Mbz1. I noticed the image you added to Mirage and looked at some of your other images. They are very nice and show some great examples of unusual atmospheric optics. You may want to consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons where they can easily be used by wikipedias in other languages. I had uploaded a fairly large number of images here before somebody pointed that out... It was a bit of a pain to transfer them over, compared to simply uploading them to the commons to begin with. Here's a help page for moving ones already here. Images uploaded to the commons can be used by name as if they were on the EN wikipedia. I also recommend using a commons account name which is the same as your account here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. --Dfred 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, glad to hear you're using the commons. And you did reply in the "right" place. Some people do choose to put a note on their own talk pages indicating they will reply locally rather than on the other person's talk page. --Dfred 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] re: toy dog revision

You're right, it wasn't vandalism. It wasn't appropriate for that article, so I removed it. But I shouldn't have called it vandalism. Jerazol 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

Hi, I think there might be something wrong with your signature, because it creates a new line of text, rather than ending at the end of your comments ([1], [2], [3]). I suggest looking at the code that creates your signature, or if you're intentionally doing it, please simply add your signature directly after your comment, not on a new line. Thanks! --Tewy 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Tewy
Hello, Tewy, I'm not sure how it works. I do not do it in purpose. I just sign as "Mbz1 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1" withouts " of course. I'm not sure how to look at the code. Could you help me, please. Mbz1 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I think what you're doing is simply hitting the return key just after you type your comment, as follows: This is a part of my comment. *hits return key* This is another part of my comment. *hits return key* This is my signature. Generally on talk pages, the entire comment is entered on one line, without ever hitting the return key. This includes an introduction (as you left on my talk page and which I have copied above), the main section, and the signature. So if this is your problem, try to keep all of your comment on one line of code. Also, do you use the four tildes to enter your signature (~~~~)? If not, see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, especially the section on How to "sign" your posts. This allows you to just type your comment, hit the space bar, and then type the four tildes (~). Wikimedia software will automatically insert your signature once you click "save". If you need to change your signature, see the section on Customizing your signature. Hopefully this helps your problem; if not, feel free to contact me again on my talk page. --Tewy 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mirages

A mirage?
A mirage?

You reverted my edits to the Mirage article citing the caption under the distorted picture of the sun (shown right) was incorrect, specifically that it was not a superior mirage. While I will admit I am not an expert on the topic, I am quite confident that it is not an inferior mirage, and according to the article, those are the only two types (with various sub-types under each). If they are not either, then there is no reason to place them within the mirage article. However, to me, it would appear to be a superior mirage because the lower, wider portion of the solar disk appears to be "shoved up", due to being refracted down at the atmospheric thermocline. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the animations and a few of the other images I removed from the main body because they were confusing as to what was being demonstrated. Because of the movement of the camera, it is difficult to trace the effect occurring, and so they end up being more of a distraction. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 02:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Images

Mbz, I can see why you are upset, but I would encourage you to keep your wonderful pictures here. Please don't let a couple people, out of the huge community who appreciate your work, let you down like that. They definitely could have used a less insulting tone. I would ask that you replace the images, as they would be a huge loss to Wikipedia Wikidan829 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the images, once an image is uploaded to Wikipedia it does not belong to a user and they have not inherent right to remove it. Thanks TigerShark 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, TigerShark, Thanks for your message. I'm not removing the images I uploaded to Wikipedia(I wish I could, but I cannot), I'm just removing my own images from the pages I posted them myself. Anybody could edit Wikipedia pages. The images are still at Wikipedia and could be placed back to the pages with only one click of a mice, but I'm not going to be the one to make that click. Best regards.

Mbz1 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Thanks. I understand what you mean and, yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but you should not be performing a mass removal of images just because you want to remove your contributions (I understand that this is due to a dispute with another user). Any edit you make should be aimed at improving the articles, and you need a good reason to remove information (including images) - even if you added the information originally. If there is a good reason to remove each image, please state it in each edit summary, but don't remove them if there isn't. Thanks again. TigerShark 23:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We can discuss this further, but if you continue to remove images I will be forced to block you for vandalism. Sorry TigerShark 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm finished removing the pictures, but you know what is really funny about all that. Few days ago I added that image to toy dogs page. Guess what, user Jerazol removed it 30 minutes later what do you think for? For vandalism. I'm still not sure why the picture of a cute, toy dog was removed from Toy dog page and I have no idea how one could have called it "vandalism". This is only one example of Wikipedia users removing my pictures. That's why I prefer to do it myself without "freindly" edits in History. When I came to Wikipedia, my only goal was to share my pictures with Wikipedia readers. I wanted as many people as possible to see my pictures because at least some of them are rare and could have some encyclopedic value. I was planning to upload many more more or less rare images to Wikipedia. I'm not going to do it any more. Maybe I will upload some of my new pictures to Wikipedia, but I'm not going to post any of them to any pages. If you wish to block me for vandalism go ahead. I do not really care any more.

Oh, and by the way have you noticed, I'm not only removing images, I'm putting the other peole images, which I removed earlier right back. For example, the first image on that page that I removed few weeks ago is now back in all its glory! Best regards. Mbz1 23:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

[edit] Your signature

Hi, I think there might be something wrong with your signature, because it creates a new line of text, rather than ending at the end of your comments ([4], [5], [6]). I suggest looking at the code that creates your signature, or if you're intentionally doing it, please simply add your signature directly after your comment, not on a new line. Thanks! --Tewy 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Tewy
Hello, Tewy, I'm not sure how it works. I do not do it in purpose. I just sign as "Mbz1 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1" withouts " of course. I'm not sure how to look at the code. Could you help me, please. Mbz1 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I think what you're doing is simply hitting the return key just after you type your comment, as follows: This is a part of my comment. *hits return key* This is another part of my comment. *hits return key* This is my signature. Generally on talk pages, the entire comment is entered on one line, without ever hitting the return key. This includes an introduction (as you left on my talk page and which I have copied above), the main section, and the signature. So if this is your problem, try to keep all of your comment on one line of code. Also, do you use the four tildes to enter your signature (~~~~)? If not, see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, especially the section on How to "sign" your posts. This allows you to just type your comment, hit the space bar, and then type the four tildes (~). Wikimedia software will automatically insert your signature once you click "save". If you need to change your signature, see the section on Customizing your signature. Hopefully this helps your problem; if not, feel free to contact me again on my talk page. --Tewy 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

OK. Thanks for letting me know. It is a shame that you won't be able to contribute further, but as long as the image removal issue is closed, and you are happy to let the "vandalism comment" issue go, I don't see any further problem here. Thanks TigerShark 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: A licence question

Hi. My best guess is that it is OK, as it has been released by the author, but to be honest I am not sure about the Wikipedia policy on this isse (I had a quick look but couldn't find anything definitive). Can I suggest that you raise the question at WP:MCQ, I would be interested to see the outcome. Thanks TigerShark 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

You might want to consider archiving your talk page, instead of deleting its content. --Tewy 01:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: There's no rule that says you have to archive your talk page, but I think it's nice to have some sort of record of past discussions, even if it's tucked away in a subpage somewhere. It's your call, though. --Tewy 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS

Thank you for your contributions. I would suggest you take a look at the manual of style to see how they should be placed into an article. One of the guidelines state that they shouldn't overpower the article. Roguegeek (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GGB images

Unfortunately, the section you added has nothing specific to due with the article's subject. They would be much better used in an article about the section you actually provided. But like I said, ask the other editors in the discussion area and see what they think and please remember to remain civil and assume good faith. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be careful when using the word vandalism, especially when using it wrong. Please check out the policy on that here. Roguegeek (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can look up the meaning of that policy here if interested in seeing what it means. It doesn't just deal with physical products. For more clarity on this, you can get help from the admins. Roguegeek (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The comments you leave with like the one you did with this edit could be considered uncivil. I would appreciate it if you could be a little more careful with this and suggest you read up on the strict no personal attacks policy. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I offer my apologies. My intentions are never to sound rude or to be authorative, but in hindsight, my curt judgement of your comment may have seemed so. I ask that you assume good faith, as I have obviously failed to do. Please, if I have failed to act respectfully, I welcome your comments, whether or not you choose to accept my apology. J Are you green? 03:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On an entirely different note, you may want to have a look at your picture, which Soobrickay has nominated. J Are you green? 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hawk

can you identify the birds in the photos you added to the Hawk article? I'm not convinced that either is an Accipiter hawk as listed in the article. They look more like Buteo species. Jimfbleak 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not doubting that the images should be on wikipedia, just a matter of which page is most appropriate, I'll see if the US birders can identify them. Jimfbleak 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion here indicates that the birds are Red-tailed Hawks. Since that article has lots of images, I've moved your images to Buteo, hope that's OK, Jimfbleak 05:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi Mila,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 16, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-09-16. howcheng {chat} 22:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment regarding images at Caustic (optics)

I have left you a comment at Talk:Caustic (optics)--Srleffler 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wildfire generarated by lava flow
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Lava wildfire.JPG, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 11:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Mschel has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Mila! I just wanted to say that I absolutely love your photography. Keep it up! --Mschel 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On signing comments...

Just some comments regarding your signature: you don't have to type "Mbz1" after you type ~~~~, because ~~~~ generates your name, along with a timestamp. Of course, if you like putting "Mbz1" behind ~~~~ then that's okay; it really is your choice.
Also, you may want to take note of the following:

  • Typing three tildes, ~~~, will generate your username only, without a timestamp.
  • Typing five tildes, ~~~~~, will generate a timestamp, but not your username.

See you around. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Altiris Helios Exeunt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Humpback FPC

I appreciate you vote on Image:Humpback stellwagen.JPG. I also wanted to let you know that another user posted an edited version (downsized and cleaned up), though the resolution is not as high as the origional, I feel that quality makes the edited image more valuable to the encyclopedia, and though that it deserved your attention. Thanks. Wwelles14 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gold dust day gecko at flower
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Gold dust day gecko at flower-edit1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 02:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply on Caustics

No, for the same reason I raised before: It's a beautiful photograph, but a poor illustration of optical caustics. The article is much too short to support more than a few images (which it already has). The best place to collect images of caustics is in the Commons page on caustics.--Srleffler 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Icebergs in Greenland
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Iceberg with hole edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploads to Wikipedia

Hi, I noticed that you recently uploaded several photographs to Wikipedia. Why not instead put them on Commons? As you have an account there, I am sure you are aware of the benefits of using Commons for all Wikipedias of any language rather than just the English Wikipedia. Thanks, thegreen J Are you green? 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, naturally, these are your photographs, so do as you please, but Commons provides an excellent way to expand the impact of your sharing your photos. If you really wish to leave Commons, might you consider using it only to upload photographs, and nothing else? thegreen J Are you green? 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncing ball FP nomination

There is a new extremely professional re-edit from my original RAW file by Richard Bartz, and I'd urge you to vote for this instead of my own imperfect Photoshop efforts. Thanks very much to Richard for the work he's put in. Please consider voting or amending your vote at: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Projectile motion. --MichaelMaggs 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mammatus clouds

Mbz - I think your images are good additions - the article isn't too crowded yet, and they show the mammatus features well in the context of the rest of the clouds they come with, unlike some of the zoomed in views. The second image is particularly nice I think - more realistic contrast maybe. As for that image you linked to me - yeah - it's not mammatus. Go ahead and remove if you want, otherwise I will. Those are clearly contrails. Do you have any info about why the mammatus clouds formed in SF, i.e. was there a front or storm associated with them? If so you chould add that to the caption to boost the enc value even more. BTW - why do you keep blanking your talk page? Debivort 06:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petrified Pine Cone

Petrified pine cone edit

Hi Mbz1,

Have just looked through the archives and saw your reply on the Petrified pine cone FPC nom. I've done an edit on your preferred version, which I've attached here.

Clearly it was going to be too late on the other nomination, and I was not around.

If you want to do a new nomination I would support this edit. I don't know if it will generate enough interest, but we can only try. Not sure whether it would be considered too soon to renom now or if it would be OK? --jjron 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Would you mind if I nominated this image on FPC if you're not taking part at the moment? If so, I might leave it for about a week or so, to give a bit of a gap since the previous nom. --jjron 05:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll drop you a note when I do the nomination so you can see how it's going or vote on it (I'll have to replace the existing image in the articles with this one before I nominate). As I said above, I won't do it immediately. --jjron 14:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to replace it in the articles that's fine by me. I'll check it's in there before I nominate. --jjron 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the same message on your original photo currently in the articles. It's a bit silly, it says the species is 'misidentified', which is not correct, it's just not identified in the filename. Anyway, I've uploaded a new copy here Image:Petrified Araucaria cone from patagonia-Edit1.jpg.jpg (accidentally gave it two jpgs). --jjron 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably nominate later this week, once all my own current self-noms have successfully failed! If you want to nominate earlier, then it's up to you. --jjron 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mila. Finally got around to nominating: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Araucaria Fossil. Cheers, --jjron 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with you adding the edit if you would like to try. Personally, to me it looks almost blown out on the right side in the new open part, so still think the nominated version is probably better. But again it is still not getting many votes, so the edit perhaps would at least attract some more attention. For that reason it may be worth putting up, but it would need a late rush of supports now with the oppose votes it has, so good luck. --jjron 12:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm happy for you to add anything you like to the nomination, if you think you have an improvement. As I said yesterday, hopefully it may help to pick up some more votes, for either alternative. --jjron 07:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested page protection of Cirrus cloud

I've made a page protection request on Cirrus cloud. You can see the request here. --Tckma 12:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sea urchin image

Hi MBZ - I think the new sea urchin image is OK - but you don't really need my permission! The article is getting a bit cluttered, but it's not too bad. How did you find out what the sphere was, by the way? de Bivort 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dendrite (crystal)

I really do not care either way. You image got declined because it was too unsharp. I did some quick editing with your picture (downsampled and applied a smart sharpening) and it got rid of the unsharpness enough to be a QI. I can upload it if you want. --Digon3 talk 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images on a disambiguation page

In your 19 October 2007 edit to the Sea worm disambiguation page, you added two images. The manual of style indicates that images should only be added when they "aid in selecting between articles". These do not. --Bejnar 06:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Surfing Image

Mila,

The caption you proposed is much better. I took the liberty of editing it for style, but the content you provided is more or less the same. I've also restated my support for the image. Let me know if there's anything else you need. SingCal 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Maybe you could help

Hello Mbz1! I'd be glad to give it a shot. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would help. Could you email it to me? (cillanxc (at) yahoo.com). CillaИ ♦ XC 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've emailed an edit to you. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/surfer
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Surfer in california 2.JPG, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Hi Mila,

While I'm very fond of the majority of the images you put up for FP nomination, it seems that you have had a tough time getting support for a good number of them until the captions are revised. You might consider asking other, native-English-speaking Wikipedians to review your captions before you nominate images; I'd certainly be willing to help you with this, as I'm sure would others who frequently vote on images. SingCal 18:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to. If you plan on nominating an image and would like some feedback on the caption before doing so, just provide me with a WL on my talk, and I'll do whatever I can to help. SingCal 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Humpback Whale in antarctica.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Humpback Whale in antarctica.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various featured picture candidacies
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 07:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:View of Cappadocia edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 07:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your pictures!

The Photographer's Barnstar
For giving Wikipedia at least FIVE featured pictures ( Image:Surfer in california 2.JPG, Image:Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud.jpg, Image:View of Cappadocia edit.jpg, Image:Lava wildfire.JPG, and Image:Gold dust day gecko at flower-edit1.jpg) and countless other great ones! —ScouterSig 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restore

OK. Just go to this and tell me which date and time you want me to restore to. - Rjd0060 00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To the very first edit? - Rjd0060 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Per the instructions above, I restore your user page to its original version. If you want to remove information from this page, you can just click "edit this page", and delete all the content. Although, please note archiving is recommended. - Rjd0060 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I see the problem. I thought you were talking about your user page. So now, two questions:
1. Do you want me to undo my restoration of the user page?
2. Do you really want to just delete all the information on this page and restore to the first version, or would you rather archive it?
Sorry about the confusion.- Rjd0060 00:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the user page. As for the talk page, if I restore to the first version it will just be a redirect page. Sorry, but to make sure there are no more mistakes, you need to go to this page and copy and paste the time and date of the revision you want restored to. - Rjd0060 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

hey! i saw you had probs reverting your talk-page back. i can revert it. Can you tell me which date do you want me to revert it back to? Ilyushka88 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you want to archive the page then, since you said you don't want o lose all the messages. - Rjd0060 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I dont understand what you want then. Because if the page is restored, as you are asking, all the comments will be removed. If you do archive it, which you dont want to for some reason, then the messages will be available to see in the archive, which you could add a link to the archive on this page . - Rjd0060 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. - Rjd0060 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ Mono Lake
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Mono lake tufa.JPG, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 05:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In need of another eye

In the middle of my strike against working for a wage that does not allow me to live in the community in which I serve (on 'strike' since 2003), when capitalism failed me -- I have been trying to fill my time and kill that bastard boredom and feel useful because I contribute to this stuff, this encyclopedia for the masses and the images which illustrate it. It is the boredom I think that is really my problem.

I am a big fan of your writing since June 2007 and I was wondering if you could help me think through or help my confidence with this one little thing, this damn weather satellite. They launched it on an April 1st and I stopped today and really really started to consider 'what if this was an April Fools joke'?

They effectively used the Featured Pictures to show me that no one cares about the little image from 1960 that I repaired and (to quote Vonnegut) So be it. What I really need now is someone who has not lived in the world that I lived in but maybe who lived through many of the years that I lived through to look it over and tell me thoughts that are not my own.

Is this an April Fools joke that still lives? -- User:CarolSpears 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

[7] -- Carol 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, it was funny.--Mbz1 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite often, people whose English is limited, cannot type so well in American English. -- Carol 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)
Thank you, Carol. I've almost got blocked from Wikipedia for my writings. I'd rather forget about all of them now.--Mbz1 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/New solar system in a making
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Mira the star-by Nasa alt crop.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 05:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: email

I did my own research (i.e. googling the place and the time of capture) and could not find any evidence that the image was a copyvio. MER-C 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you.--Mbz1 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surfer

Mila, where did you take this picture: Image:Surfer in california 2.JPG?? The California WikiProject maintains a list of featured pictures in California, and this one (among others you have taken!) is listed there, but it doesn't have a specific location. —ScouterSig 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: pine cone image

Hey there - I did not delete the image, I only deleted a blank description page someone created on this project. Since the image exists on commons, the page here is not necessary. The image is still there. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Emperor Tamarin portrait 2.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Emperor Tamarin portrait 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various featured picture candidacies (2)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Magpie Goose taking off.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Lava channel with overflows edit 4.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 08:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Picture gallery

Mila, I think you need to userfy the gallery on the page Picture Gallery Arctic, Antarctica and Sub-Antarctic Islands, or it may be deleted. You can just ue the 'move' function, I think, to put it in a page similar to your other sub-user page galleries. —ScouterSig 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re:Rays image

Hi Mbz1, Form what I see of you at wikipedia, you seem to be very polite in your comments. If you made some mistakes in the past, forget them. Your pictures are great and not nominating them at commons seems a waste. Why dont you give it a re-shot? H92110 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet Holmes

Beautiful addition Image:17pHolmes 071104 eder vga.jpg - Thanks! Tom Ruen (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The color of the Sun

Hey Mbz1, thanks for the info. You'll note my comment was about how we're used to seeing the Sun (yellow), not what color the sun is objectively (white, as you said). Your links (and the Wikipedia article itself) were interesting, though--thanks.

I see you restored your talk page, and you and Fir0002 are even getting along! Glad to see. :) And congratulations on your recent FP's. --Peter (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tortoise FPCC

Hi, Could you please give your opinion on the images here before I nominate for Featured Picture? Thanks, Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the note re the Gecko. --jjron (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Mating nudibranches 4.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mating nudibranches 4.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crepuscular rays

I will get right to the point: I found your post to my talk page quite rude and dismissive. The onus is on YOU to find support to back up your claims, not ME. Our article said nothing about light rays shining through trees as being "crepuscular", nor did the various websites I searched (including the US's NOAA and the UK's Atmospheric Optics pages) at the time. I voted strong oppose because your pictures did not illustrate the topic of the article, as best as I could determine. If you bothered to actually read the article, you'd notice that it still specifies the light rays to come through clouds. But instead of editing the article or accepting that your definition is different than most other people's, you decided to leave a nasty note on my talk page. And on Dschwen's. Grow the hell up. Matt Deres (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Thank you for your message, Matt Deres. It helped me to understand better why you voted the way you did.
      For the history here's the "rude" and "nasty" message I've left at Matt Deres talk page:


Hi, Matt Deres,
May I please ask you to take a look here:
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=08&month=12&year=2007
Please take a look at 3D SUNBEAMS and please see how they call them. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it may be a good idea to learn something about the subject before strong opposing the image. Thank you for your time and no response is needed. Regards--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    • here's one more thing for the history (if somebody is interested in reading it):
      nomination
      . --Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • and few more things. It is not the truth that Les Cowely atmospheric optics site does not mention crepuscular rays formed at the trees. It sure does! Please see here and here(the last image in the second row). Wikimedia commons has quite a few images, which show crepuscular rays with trees. I explained in great details why the nominated image is of crepuscular rays, on the other hand I do not feel my English is good enough to edit an article.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You are trying to confuse the issue. Whether the pictures are crepuscular rays are not is beside the point. My issue with you is you showing up on my talk page a month later accusing me of not investigating the matter and acting in bad faith. I checked our article and found nothing. I checked the NOAA and found nothing. I promise you I did check the AO site and saw nothing; if that single picture you just pointed out was there, I did not see it. (Your first link, by the way, if just a picture of a tree... nothing to do with crepuscular rays at all). My investigations were all more than I should ever have to do - it is up to you to support your idea, not me. I was entirely right to strong oppose.
At this point you have a single picture at a professional website (the AO site) and if you'd pointed that out then, I would likely have switched my vote and I probably still would. Re-nominate and see (I think I prefer the edit1 picture). All you could offer during the vote was the folder at Commons (which is just put together by guys like you and me, and anyone can upload anything) and some arguments before you just gave up and withdrew yet another nomination. You are the one who failed to support your idea and you are the one who gave up on the picture - you have no right to now show up on my talk page (and Dschwen's) and accuse us of anything. Matt Deres (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • May I please respond to some of your accusations?
    After you've strongly opposed the image I've provided extensive explanations written by a famous scientist in the nomination.I felt it was enough to prove that the image was of crepuscular rays. I have not expected anyone to investigate the matter for me. Only because you've written " I will also try to read up on it as well" I've asked you to share your finding with us in the same nomination. You've never responded. How should I have known, if you tried to look up about the subject or simply forgot about it all together? I posted a message at your talk page a months later because it was, when I found the image at NASA site, which I believe was a reliable source. I still believe that it could have been better to ask a question about the subject instead of opposing it right away. At least it is what I would have done in such a situation.I'm sorry, if my message at your talk page offended you in any way. It was not my intention. Let me please asure you I will not be "showing" at your talk page ever again. On the other hand I'd like to welcome you to my talk page, whenever you feel as stopping by.I'd also like to thank you for taking your time to look at the nominated images again and for commenting on them.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Great Egret Photograph

If you're going to remove my photo from the info. box, fine, at least you replaced it with a half way decent image. But you can show some good form and will by putting my image *somewhere* in the article. Googie man (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I've no problem with the new image you've posted. It is a beautiful image!Your other image IMO should be put to the gallery. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow & thanks

Like it says. I appreciate your kind thoughts. Please do tell me if I can help you at all. You make some great contributions to the project - regards --Herby talk thyme 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!!

Thank you so much for the Barnstar for my bird photographs, and your kind words. I always thought my photographs went mostly unnoticed until now! Keep up the great photograph yourself, and I hope you enjoy the Holidays. Best, Googie man (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mating Nudibranchs image

Hi Mbz1, Nice to meet you. I wanted to ask about your image of mating nudibranchs. I cannot be certain of this, because the animals are all twisted over one another such that it is hard to see their exact shape and body features, but they look like they might be Cephalaspideans in the family Aglajidae to me. If I am right about this, then they are not technically nudibranchs, although they are indeed colorful sea slugs. If you don't mind my asking, I just wondered how expert the person was who gave you the ID of them as nudibranchs? Invertzoo (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Mbz1, thanks for your nice reply. You might want to consider putting that image on the page for Aglajidae because it seems that that is what they are. You could maybe call the image mating aglajids. (By the way, a lot of people think that all sea slugs are nudibranchs, or at least they think that all the colorful small sea slugs are nudibranchs, but wow, although there really are a lot of nudibranchs, there are also many other different kinds of sea slugs, and some of them are rather colorful too.) Maybe in February, if you think it's a good idea, I could submit your photo to the seaslug forum at [www.seaslugforum.net] and get a proper professional opinion? Bill Rudman might even know exactly which genus and species they are... but he is on vacation right now. Best to you. Invertzoo (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi once again Mbz. I have to say that I am not an expert at all on these shell-less species. I know much more about shelled species. Also, just to explain, the word "sea slug" is a very loose term with no real scientific significance: it just means any kind of marine gastropod or sea snail that has either an extremely small shell which it can't retract into, or it has an internal shell of some kind, or it has no shell whatsoever. So nudibranchs are actually sea slugs, it is just that they are not the only kind of sea slugs, and that comes as a surprise to a lot of people. Your pretty Hawaiin mating creatures were (I believe) something in the family Aglajidae, which are one family of the cephalaspidean sea slugs also known as headshield slugs. I don't know what genus or species they are though. As for the nice pics you just sent me, I think the one on the left is probably Hermissenda crassicornis please take a look at [8] and the one on the left is some species of a dorid nudibranch. Somewhere I have the book on the west coast nudibranchs, and if I can dig it out I may be able to work out what that is, it's probably something fairly common and easy to ID if I knew the fauna well. I will get back to you on that as best as I can. Invertzoo (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a P.S.... Were your California nudibranch photos taken in northern or southern California? Invertzoo (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi me again. I looked around online and I think your image of the mating sea slugs shows a Chelidonura species, possibly C. hirundinina illustrated at [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertzoo (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mila, I got your message. I can't imagine why your computer won't let you get into Bill Rudman's site OK. I can, and the links I offered work fine for me yesterday and today, but I hope that sorts itself out soon for you. If the two 'branchs were from a little south of San Francisco that would still be northern California. Central Calif is a small area right around Point Conception, the "elbow" of the state. You are welcome to any ideas I come up with for IDs, it is good for me to be forced to learn a bit more about sea slugs of all kinds. Invertzoo (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More IDs on the nudibranchs

OK! The image you have labeled as "nudibranch in tidepool", the pretty orange and white one, is of Triopha catalinae, the clown nudibranch. Once your computer allow you access to Bill Rudman's excellent site, Sea Slug Forum, the page you need to look at is [10]. You can also find an image of the same slug at [11]. Invertzoo (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

From Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

[edit] About that Image

You posted on WP:HELPDESK that an image was up under your name when you have nothing to do with it. If you go here and type in "animalpicturesarchive.com" it will give you email details of the domain holder. If he/she's not in charge of the website, they should be able to put you in touch with someone who is. I'd put the email down here but WP is combed for email addresses and don't want to spam the person. I hope this is of some help to you, Merry Christmas. AndrewJDTALK -- 19:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that [12] has a confusing design. The data for an image is above the image. The author field for the image says "Name (E-mail): Unknown". Below the image is the data mentioning you. But that data is supposed to be for an image below. The image is Image:Wonder albat.jpg by you, but it's not displayed. Instead, below a green box with keywords, there is the Copyright Info: "AnimmalPicturesArchive.com does not have the copyright for this image. This photograph or artwork is copyright by the photographer or the original artist. If you are to use this photograph, please contact the copyright owner or the poster." PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is tecnically an error. It's just a result of their design and they may not want to change that design. I don't know how the URL was originally achieved but I guess it's an image search which returned 2 hits and one of them (yours) is not displayed on the page because of copyright concerns. Note that the data with no author above the image says "Resolution: 900x660 File Size: 167947 Bytes". These are the exact numbers for the full image (reached by clicking the image) and are different from your image at Image:Wonder albat.jpg, so this type of close inspection (which many readers may not make) makes it clear that you are not supposed to be the author of the displayed image. Maybe normal users of the site knows the site design and will not misunderstand which data belongs to the displayed image. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
After further investigation of the site I now agree it's an error where two similar images were mixed up. [13] appears to have the right information. It's Image:070226 wandering albatross off Kaikoura 3.jpg by Mark Jobling. The version you found at [14] was allegedly uploaded two minutes later and should probably just be deleted completely. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hi! Just wanted to say thanks for the heads up on the delisting nomination on featured pictures. I hope it doesn't get delisted. Cheers! --Jnpet (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the image you nominated deserved to be featured. I certainly would have voted for it. Unfortunately, I've pretty much given up on FP as I felt it's more a club for art photography at times where encyclopedic value is not taken into consideration. There are some fantastic pictures there, but very limited for under water images. I guess people who have never tried photographing under water do not understand the difficulties involved. If you have difficulties in nominating another image, and need an unbiased opinion, please let me know. Cheers! --Jnpet (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar thank you

Mila...thank you very much for the barnstar...it is most appreciated. I have been impressed with your ability to see art when dullards like me might only see raindrops...I am speaking of course about this image...very nice. Thanks again!--MONGO 07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dermasterias

A tag has been placed on Dermasterias, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's up

Your recent message is unjust, i've never been on your userpage nor have i've ever heard of you. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The top message has been cancelled, i want an explanation and what do you mean from my talk page. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 11:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logs

I've re-checked the logs and it appears your userpage was vandalized a few times, if you want i could monitor your userpage from time to time to check if it's alright, and i understood what you meant on the talkpage. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 12:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Regarding your comment, during that time i was using Lupins Live spellcheck, it identified it as a spelling mistake, and i had it correct the mistake, but the problem was it didn't say whether it was joined to a user, your comment has been noted and you'll find that i won't correct it again, as i'm working on certain articles from now on, and i'm also monitoring meta-wiki have a good day. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ —Preceding comment was added at 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)