User talk:JoJan/Archive1

Archive 1 : March 2004 - December 2004

Weather Lore

JoJan, thank you for your kind remark. I hope this article sees Featured status, but if not, I've still had the pleasure of writing it. And welcome to Wikipedia -- I see you bring a wealth of knowledge with you. I look forward to working with you. Denni 16:33, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

Sea Hares

Hi Jojan. I found some good Sea hare photos on the web for your requests on Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I contacted the owner (Baki Yokeş, a researcher in Turkey), and he agreed to release the photos in the public domain. Notarchus and Petalifera now have great photos. Hope you like em. He also said he as more photos of different species if needed. I am working on the remaining sea hares listed in Wikipedia:Requested pictures, so let me know if you need some, or just add more to the list. Best regards, -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris73. You're doing a great job. Photos as these are difficult to come by. Just add them to the page. If they need formatting, I'll do it if necessary. But don't be surprised if it takes a while, because I'm about to leave on holiday for a couple of weeks. I have made a few requests for photos myself, to a Malacological Society and to a diving club. So far, no response. At the moment, I'm making new pages about sea butterflies. I have already finished the genus Limacina and I'm working now on the other genera. No photos, so far. So, if you can get any photos, they are most welcome. JoJan 19:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get the wrong Limacina? Sorry. I'll keep on looking. By the way, i removed the picture requests that have no page yet. I hope this is OK with you, and feel free to add them again when you completed the articles. I just think there is no point in requesting a picture if there is no place to put it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Fir

Hi JoJan - I hope you won't object too much that I reverted your edits on fir - my reasons are (1), I find the |- form of box formatting much less comprehensible than the 'traditional' <tr><td> etc format and takes up 3 times as many lines in the edit box; (2), the species order I had used was a taxonomic one (Rushforth & Farjon), with related species next to each other; (3) the extra species (and several of the infraspecific taxa) added are no longer considered valid; (4) the vast number of additional, mainly archaic, vernacular names is confusing and not at all useful; the few of them which are still in occasional use can be added to the relevant species pages, but they do not help here. Valid infraspecific taxa will be mentioned in the species pages; whether they are worth including here I'm less sure, I can add them back in. - MPF 00:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi JoJan - I appreciate your feelings over my revert and regret the pain caused; I would feel the same over lost work. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the taxonomic and nomenclatural information was very outdated and inaccurate, in conflict with standard sources like the Kew Checklist. Not your fault, that of the references you had available (I am curious to know what reference it was?). I would expect my work to be given equal peer review. Some of what you did, I have restored, notably the inclusion of infraspecific taxa in the species list.

Of the taxobox, the problem with the wiki markup is that it uses 34 carriage returns, as opposed to just 14 for the HTML markup, so it takes up a lot more space. Is there any way of condensing the wiki markup more? I tried stripping some of the carriage returns out to see if any were redundant (as many are in some of the older HTML taxoboxes), but it didn't work. I have restored the {{regnum}} etc., as I agree these are useful. - MPF 09:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Horse-chestnut

Hi JoJan - while "Horse Chestnut" may be the commoner, it is also the more confusing, implying these species belong in the genus Castanea. Hyphenating the name avoids this; it is a form of the name which I think should be encouraged as an education for the future. There has been a similar trend in some English bird names, e.g. "Stone Curlew" ("Numenius" oedicnemus) was changed to "Stone-curlew" to avoid confusion and show its seperate (Burhinus oedicnemus) generic status. I guess it depends on whether one thinks an encyclopedia should be reactive (recording the past) or proactive (educating for the future); my preference is for the latter. When individual species pages get written, I think both forms should be included in the text but giving titular prominence to the hyphenated form - MPF 23:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Requesting copyright-free images

Hi JoJan. Using images with permission that can only be used on Wikipedia is far from ideal. Our mirrors and forks tend to take all the images indiscriminately, so would be violating the agreement you had with the person that gave you permission. Please see Jimbo's post on Wikien-l about this issue. He suggests such images should be deleted. If you do upload one despite this, please be sure to add {{Copyrighted}} to it. This will help re-users of our content to filter out such images if they need to. It would also be useful to note in the article where the image is used that restrictions apply, inside HTML comments. Truly free images are much preferred. See the Finding images tutorial for more details on getting these. Angela . 22:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dag Jojan,

Bedankt voor je opbouwende kritiek. Ik zal er zeker mee aan de slag gaan. Omdat ik geïnteresseerd ben in wie je was en wat je doet ben ik wat verder gaan zoekn. Zo las ik ook je interesse in vreemde namen omzetten in Nederlandse plantnamen. Misschien wil je derhalve ook eens kijken bij Planten voor industriële verwerking. Ik ben deze pagina aan het vertalen uit de Franse wiki, maar kwam nog meer van dergelijke pagina's tegen. Het kost me echter veel zoekwerk. Groetjes --Rasbak 08:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Compacting_Wiki_Taxoboxes

Hi JoJan - could you check in here please, and see if anything more can be done to improve the Wiki taxoboxes?: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Compacting_Wiki_Taxoboxes. Thanks, - MPF 16:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gastropods

Thanks for the feedback Jojan. I'm glad I could contribute.

Camassia

I began a page today on this member of the Lily family. I saw that you are a guru of flora, so I hope you will take a look and add as you feel is necessary. There is a corelated article on Quamash the Native American term for the bulb. Thanks in advance. Robbie Giles 05:57, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I will be doing little flora, although I may do some related to native perennials in Idaho and Washington States. I have lots of reading to do to get up to speed.

--18:59, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)Robbie Giles

Pictures (struik)

Hoi,
You mentioned that you had photoshopped the struik picture on en: and reduced it in size. You assumed that I would not object. Well, I do. The point with wikipedia is, is that it is PD I try to make good pictures and by reducing them in size you reduce the usefullnes of the pictrures. As the Wikisoftware does do the reducing there is no need for reducing the pictures.

The implementation of the thumb by showing the detail form is dead wrong; what is required is that the pictures are resized client side to fit the screen. Photoshop is good for red eyes. GerardM 06:32, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

substub

I noticed the "substub" addition to the pages. I'll follow your lead for the other pages I'm going to create. Just learning. Mikcohen 04:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

send me a link to the pic in question

so I can get you additonal picutres I have no ideal about scenitific names. as to the copyright tag thing is there anyway to do it enmass IE I give some admin permission and let em do it. (User:Belizian)

Brassica

Hi Jo - from the New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening. The main thrust of my changes is of course that the various food crop brassicas are of cultivated origin, not wild, and therefore follow the precepts of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), no longer being given botanical names under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) below the rank of the wild taxon they derive from. As the various cabbages etc comprise numerous similar cultivars (rather than single cultivars), the applicable name type is the Cultivar Group, given in capitalised roman type (not italics): Xxxxx Group, and (unlike single cultivars) not in single quotes. The IPNI database, being merely an index of all published names, makes no distinction between which are valid under current nomenclatural rules or not. - MPF 15:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taxobox for Devil's coach horse beetle

Dear JoJan

I wrote a little article on the Devil's coach horse beetle, and I haven't done a taxobox as I am not familiar with some of the subtelties of taxonomy.

My taxobox attempt is in Talk:Devil's coach horse beetle, I wonder if you could check it.

I'm not sure about the geographical range of these beetles, certainly wide spread in the British Isles and introduced to New Zealand and California. Maybe you have them in continental Euorpe too -- in which case you perhaps know names in other languages.

Thanks 08:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done JoJan 15:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks nice job. Now I have to catch one in the garden and get it to pose for a photo.Billlion 16:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I found a picture and its author kindly agreed to its use (a bird watcher from the Isle of Man called Chris Wormwell). Now I put it in the taxo box, but not quite right. I made it a thumbnail, but both thumbnail and taxobox seem to want a caption. Do you know how to do this right please? Billlion

Work in progress

Hi JoJan! Just wanted to let you know that there's no need mention in an article's text that it's a work in progress (re Anthurium) -- all Wikipedia articles are a work in progress! :-) If, however, your note is to prevent edit conflicts, then adding the {{inuse}} biolerplate message would be fine. Best wishes, Diberri | Talk 19:48, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Alpinia picture (Red Ginger)

I have a ton of these growing on my property down south I've got some heavey equipment going to be onsite next week I will take serveral pics for you when I go do there. As to the Anthurium I don't remember seeing any but I'll be on the look out and will ask around. Belizian 01:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I have a friend who says she knows where some of these are growing (Anthurium) I will try to take some pics for you this evening Belizian 17:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Antirrhinum

You asked: "Antirrhinum On 17 February you did some editing on Antirrhinum. In the article you state that Antirrhinum majus is the only species in this genus. I cannot find confirmation of this fact. Several sites, such as the University of Hawaii and several others, such as this one [[5] (http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/snapdragon/snapdragon_species.html)] give around 30 different species in this genus. Can you show me where you got your information ? JoJan 20:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

The source is in the page - ITIS. It lists most of the species on the University of Hawaii site, but reports them as synonyms, with the species having been moved to other genera (which are also listed in the page). I must say that between February and now I have become more sceptical of ITIS. But usually it is inclined to be unduly conservative, so where it has changed the classification from the traditional one, there are usually good grounds for doing so. Nonetheless, it would be worth looking in the technical literature, especially for any molecular systematics on the family. I'll have a bit of an explore and modify the page if I find anything interestingly different from the ITIS report. seglea 19:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, a bit of a look in Web of Knowledge shows that the ITIS view is eccentric in the extreme. The taxonomy of the genus is a complete mess, but no-one has recently argued for cutting it to a single species. The best source is Ryan K. Oyama and David A. Baum (2004) Phylogenetic relationships of North American Antirrhinum (Veronicaceae), American Journal of Botany, 91:918-925; the introduction summarises the current mess and there are tables comparing different proposed classification schemes. I will have a go at modifying the page in the light of this article. seglea 20:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Major re-write now done. Can you find the other species in sections Antirrhinum and Orontium? seglea 21:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pics in new taxoboxes

Hi Jo - not sure if you've seen this bug problem that's been reported: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life item 7: that pics which only appear in a new taxobox expansion don't get listed as in use on the pic's page (and therefore risk being deleted by admin as unwanted orphans). The pic Image:Araucaria.columnaris1web.jpg you uploaded, is only in the Araucaria taxobox, so I've put it on the Araucaria talk page as well to make the pic show up as in use. I've not checked for other pics you've uploaded and put in taxoboxes though. - MPF 21:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, I will put some Latin names as soon as possible. Dixi

Thank you

Thank you, I will put some Latin names as soon as posiible. Dixi

Dutch Wikipedia symposium in Rotterdam (27/11/2004)

Hi,

As a personal initiative I want to mention to you http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Symposium/Najaar_2004

There have been some voices that Dutch-speaking Belgian wikipedians might be underrepresented at that venue, so I took the liberty to post this message on the talk page of all people I found on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Belgium.

If this doesn't apply to you (e.g. while French-speaking, or not interested in Dutch wikipedia,...) simply ignore this message.

--Francis Schonken 09:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright tags

Hi Jo - I'm not certain what you mean here; what I've put is the exact text that the USDA web page ask you to put (I just copied & pasted it), thinking that following their request to the letter would be the best thing to do. What else is needed? Thanks, Michael MPF 16:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jo - Thanks; I'm not sure I understand at all, I'm not at all well up on what all this stuff means; I certainly don't want to have to faff around with e-mailing the photographer, so I guess I'd better pull them. Should I ask Uther to quick-delete them? - MPF 17:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jo, thanks again; I guess I'll ask Uther to delete them. The Tanoak, I've got a couple of acorns in my herbarium I'll scan as a stop-gap until someone can take a decent pic, but I've not got any Chrysolepis I can use. I think those are the only ones I've uploaded with the 'non-commercial only' restriction. Sorry to hear you've lost a lot of pics, too. Does it affect the pics you've uploaded from that Belgian website? (e.g. the ones at elm and pedunculate oak), if yes, really sad as they're excellent photos. MPF 19:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

dup?

Taxonomy of the orchid family and Taxonomy of the Orchid family, both created by you, seem to be mostly overlapping but are not identical. Presumably one should be a redir to the other? Stan 03:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must have been a bit overzealous. I merged both articles and made a redirect. JoJan 14:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikimeet Rotterdam

In the presentation in Rotterdam I will present Wikispecies. However I will not go into the relation with en:ToL. The reason is that I have a limited amount of time AND I have to talk in that time about Wiktionary as well. Wiktionary is more relevant to the majority of the people attending.

I am more than happy to discuss the relation between ToL and WikiSpecies outside of the presentation with people who are interested.

I am in favour of having the active ToL people subscribe to the WikiSpecies mailinglist. They can as far as I am concerned discuss ToL topics on this list. The point is however, that it is not only en:ToL people that this mailinglist would be open to. The best place to discuss the relation ToL and WikiSpecies is in my opinion on WikiSpecies itself. :) The object is that we start to cooperate more between the different projects. GerardM 21:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Molecular systematics

Sounds like DNA barcoding should be added; but I don't have time to do the research just now (last year I was on sabbatical, with the leisure to read about things that were important; this year I am back to teaching, and the only reading I have time for at the moment is what my students have to do - you may have noticed I've been missing from Wikipedia for a few weeks). Do you have time to edit the article a bit? I'll try to get back to it in a few weeks' time when the rush has died down. seglea 21:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

very nice article. I've tweaked the English a bit, as you request, but to be honest I'd be very happy if half the articles by native speakers were as well written. seglea 20:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Witte ibis

Dank je voor het toevoegen van de GDFL aan de witte ibis foto. Ik zal nog eens goed al mn plaatjes aflopen om dat sjabloon erbij te zetten. Ze staan er inmiddels al een tijdje en meeste zijn gewoon mijn eigen kiekjes. nl.Jcwf aka Jaap, Raleigh NC

Tree of Life...

So what's with Wikipedia Tree of Life/Update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group? Is it OK in copyright terms? And why is it at such a non-standard name? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

The original article at the Blackwell Group stated that it was free content, as long as the origin was mentioned. This means the copyright tag is {{cc-by-2.0}}, which is within the Wikipedia copyright restraints. This page is of great importance to all contributors working on botanical articles. Therefore the name is linked to the "Tree of Life". It may be a somewhat strange name, but every botanist knows what it is all about. JoJan 09:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Glad it's OK in copyright terms. We should probably state the copyright situation explicitly in the article so that anyone who copies it from us can easily conform and future editors know not to remove that. Also, if we are going to keep it in main article space, why can't we put it in a normal title? The "/" thing in "main" space violates policy. Or we could make it Wikipedia:Tree of Life/Update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, since Wikipedia space does not have that rule. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:30, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

OK. What about moving to : Update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group ? JoJan 09:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's outside my realm of knowledge to understand if that is right. Is this intended as a Wikipedia article? If it's just an editors' tool, the name should be of the form [[Wikipedia:...]]. If it is intended as a Wikipedia article, why "update of..."? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:44, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Foto's

Hoi JoJan. Ik zag zojuist je voorstel op de symposiumpagina geplaatst op 4 oktober. Ik vind het wel een aardig idee. Alleen zijn de meeste nl wikipedianen tegen boxjes. Zelfs navigatietabellen mogen misschien binnenkort niet meer. Anyway, ik wil graag over je idee van gedachten wisselen op de wikimeet. Groetjes vanuit Bangkok, Thailand, Waerth 09:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leaf

I've only begun to read it, but I've glance over the etinrety to get a feel for the scope of the article. Fantastic! I'll read the whole thing closely later tonight. - UtherSRG 21:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikinations

Hello JoJan ! You are Belgian and you like to contribute to Wikipedia, like me ? Then you may like to contribute to Wikinations.be too: it is a wiki site that collaboratively builds a practical encyclopedia of Belgium (in French for the moment, but you could start the Dutch version !). I just started this project, and I thought that you might be interested (although quite different from your current contributions). So, see you soon over there ? (Sorry for the disturbance if you are not interested) Pcarbonn 09:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:Shakyamuni.jpg

Hey, thanks for adding this image to Wikipedia. However, I wanted to check with you about its copyright status. The website it appears on says "Photographs © Dennis Mojado." Did the copyright owner agree for it to be released under the GFDL? - Nat Kraus e 03:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I didn't realize that a non-GFDL license was okay for images. Current policy is somewhat confusing. Thanks. - Nat Kraus e 07:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You've marked this image as cc-by-2.0, but the license on the source site is cc-by-nd, which would make it illegal for Wikipedia to use (the no derivatives clause is the deal-breaker). Do you have written permission from the creator to use cc-by-2.0? —Tkinias 11:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. The tag is cc-by-nd. But the problem is, I can't reach the author. When you click on "email" in his website, all you get is a useless popup. Obviously, he doesn't want to be disturbed by emails. JoJan 13:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:Rafinesque.jpg

Greetings! An image you uploaded, Image:Rafinesque.jpg, does not give a source or any license information. Can you please verify that you have the permission of the copyright holder to use the image under an acceptable license? —Tkinias 11:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just uploaded a slightly different version at Image:Rafinesque_2.jpg. For our purposes, I think not having the border on it is preferable. How do you feel about using that one? (I also enlarged it slightly, adjusted the contrast, and converted it to greyscale to reduce the file size.) —Tkinias 02:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. This picture is better. JoJan 09:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've marked my pictureuploads of instruments as such. Arent 10:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Orchid photos

I've done as you suggest and put them on List of Orchidaceae genera - remove any that shouldn't be there. They're also on user:KayEss/Gallery along with some other flowers (which I'm also not sure of). I've put some minimal information in the image pages. I'll try to find out what the Thai names are at least. If I'm really lucky then the Thai reference books will have latin names too - fingers crossed.

If there are any specific ones that you want me to hunt for then I can see if my mother-in-law can buy one or two and I'll head to Ubon to photo them or try to find them locally (Bangkok). --KayEss 11:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments. I'll have to start trying to find the Thai names next week after my wife returns from a trip. At least some of them must be natural (or at least old) as I think they have traditional Thai names. For example, I remember that the name of image:Orchid-03-KayEss-1.jpeg translates as something like peasant's dress or farm woman's skirt. I'll try to look more into it over the next week. --KayEss 13:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like I've done slightly better with this one Image:Dischidia pectinoides-KayEss-1.jpeg which I've put on List of garden plants.

I'm not entirely sure of the notation yet, but I've found a book with a picture of what looks exactly like Image:Orchid-01-KayEss-1.jpeg which lists it as (Phalaenopsis) Griswell Gonzales x Miki Saituo 'First No.1' --KayEss 07:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This orchid looks much like the Moon Orchid (Phalaenopsis amabilis)(see the Phalaenopsis article). If not, it is then a Phalaenopsis hybrid (one of several thousands), a very popular orchid hybrid. As to the Ant Plant, there is no article yet on Dischidia. Have you ever considered writing one ? All help is welcome. Before starting such an article, I advise to read the instructions in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. JoJan 15:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hi, I'm working on the image tagging project and I've come across some photos that you've uploaded with no licencing information. If they're yours are you releaseing our photos under the GFDL? If so could you tag them with {{GFDL}}. Many thanks --nixie 09:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oregon white oak pics

Hi Jo - sorry to have to report, but the pics you uploaded from Washington State Dept. of Transportation are not public domain; the site is only run by the state government, not the federal government, so is not covered by the federal government rules; it is marked "Copyright WSDOT © 2001" at the foot of the page. I know as I'd wanted to use pics from that site before and decided I couldn't :-(( - Michael MPF 23:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I fear the same applies to the pic at Swamp chestnut oak too - it is just the Tennessee state, not the federal govt. - MPF 00:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've put these images on the list for speedy deletion. I'm afraid we'll have to do without pictures for this articles. JoJan 08:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WilgStruik1web.jpg

Hi, I'm currently involved in the Untagged Images project and can across WilgStruik1web.jpg which you uploaded. The info with the picture states it has the same license as another image that no longer exists. Evil Monkey → ^Talk 21:53, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy deletion of this page, since it is redundant - see image:WilgStruik.jpg JoJan 08:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images

Hi Jo - stumbled across this website by chance Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk - as it is a branch of the US Forest Service, it is a work of the federal govt and (largely) copyright-free, though there are a few of the photos are not, with individual copyright notices. But it looks to be a useful source. I just uploaded a nice Cinnamon pic from it - MPF 22:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael JoJan 08:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More images

Hi JoJan, I have been trying to find the Richard Dell images as you requested, but so far no one has even replied to my emails. I will keep trying and let you know if I have any luck :( -- FirstPrinciples 10:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Eibeyew1web.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 05:48, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

This image is reworking of this image : [[Image:English Yew close 250.jpg]]<nowiki>, which has the copyright tag <nowiki>{{GFDL}}. I have put the tags on the edit page of this image. JoJan 07:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ALSO:

Image:Ceratophyllum demersum.jpg] --Kbh3rd 06:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced this image by new ones under {{GFDL}} JoJan 10:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CSD

Heya, please keep in mind there are only a few fairly strict categories for speedy deletion, listed here. Vanity is not a speedy criterion for speedy deletion, so vanity articles should not be marked for speedy deletion but be listed on Votes for Deletion. --fvw * 17:14, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Taxonomy & J. floridae

Thanks for adding the photo. You might also want to look at the WikiSpecies Project. I just stumbled into it tonight. Also, you might want to start uploading photos, etc. to the Wiki Commons area.