User talk:Solipsist/archive6

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

Root Canal

OK, I thought you would only promote with unanimous approval and we had a late negative comment. So I've just reverted to the version with consensus. Thanks for all your great work! jk 21:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many photos go through revs before posting. All the technical elements folks were supporting like colors, clarity, etc. are still there. I say give the dentist one more review on content and call it good. I'll ask him for a quick review.

As for the bday - it's the thought that counts, so no big deal on that one. I'm touched that you even considered that. :-) jk 01:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whipple Museum

Solipsist, I have already commented about your use of an image of a microscope belonging to the Whipple Museum. It appears that there are two other images of objects that you are posting. I suggest that you contact the Whipple Museum directly to ask permissions to use these images. -- User:131.111.104.86 11:08, 23 Mar 2005

Your Opinon again

Hi Solipsist, I have another series of photos for you to take a glance over if you could. Thanks for voting in the last series --Fir0002 01:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And again. Thanks! --Fir0002 07:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FPC

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pine cones, male and female.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.

Re: Sorry for the obstruction

Many thanks for removing that ban. It seems highly likely that my ISP shares out IPs, as you suggested. If this happens again in the future, or continues to happen, what would be the best plan of action? Daniel Lawrence 18:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garden Orb Weaver Pix

Hi Solipsist, Do you think it might be a better idea to replace the existing FP of the Garden Orb Weaver?

I'm pretty sure that the spider is an orb weaver (perhaps not of the garden variety) naturally I could have been mistaken. I base the identification mostly on the web (being nearly 'perfect' except for the zig-zaggy bit in the middle, and this excellent webpage: http://www.rochedalss.eq.edu.au/orbweaver.htm - I know that there isn't any looking exactly like this one, but from looking at the various pages on the site as well as this one, you can see that there is a large variety of Orb Weavers. They have an identification service, and I'll email them to find out for sure. If you suspect its something different don't hestitate to tell me!!

Thanks, --Fir0002 23:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fir, I wouldn't really know - I was just pointing out that the patterning didn't really match the other Garden Orb Weaver, but there could be any number of reasons. As you say there seems to be a fair variety of patterning within the species as well as gender differentiation. From what I read following the your previous Garden Orb Weaver pic, there must be quite a large class of Orb weaving spiders. The Orb web seems to be the classical spider's web with the spoked & spiral design. -- Solipsist 00:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Solipsist. I recieved an email back from the spider webiste and it's definetly an orb weaver although perhaps not a common or garden orb weaver. He's going to ask someone else he knows for a more positive identification.

Anyway do you think that batch is better than the current Orb Weaver FP?

--Fir0002 10:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's good - well done. Or rather, well done, assuming you do get a positive ID back. If it is not a Garden Orb Weaver, chances are you will have to write a taxonomic stub for it.

As for 'is it a better pic that the current Orb Weaver FP' - that's hard to say. In a way 'no' because it is a belly shot and doesn't show the spider as clearly as the current FP. On the other hand it is way better at showing the spider hunting and in the context of its web. Which is why I was suggesting it might be better to attach it to an article on spider behaviour and nominate it for illustrating that, rather than as an image of the spider itself.

On the whole, I prefer to see more range and variety in FeaturedPictures - which is why I was objecting to the current sunset nominations. They're good, but not necessarily better than the couple of other featured sunsets we already have, not to mention the half dozen featured cloud pictures. -- Solipsist 10:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point Solipsist, variety is the spice of life after all. And I agree with you on the belly issue - pointing the camera the other way would have been towards the sun which would have left the spider black.

Could take a little while to get more accurate ID than that it's an orb weaver because the way that spider webiste goes about identifying spiders is to post the pix in an 'Unidentified Spiders 2005' page where people look and comment on what they think it is.

So maybe in a coupla weeks I'll take your advice and portray it more as a hunting/predator shot rather than just a photo of a spider. --Fir0002 21:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture of the day

How do you choose picture of the day candidates? -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basically I just work through new FeaturedPictures in the order that they get promoted. However, we typically don't have enough new FPs to fill seven days a week (unlike Featured Articles) so I alternate with older FPs - again working through the order that they were promoted, which is pretty much the order in Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs, or the order that they were shown in older PicOfTheDay archives.

Recently we were catching up with our tail on reusing the older FPs, so on 24th March I jumped back to the beginning of the list, except that has got a little complicated as a few of those were reused in Dec04 and some others have been delisted. -- Solipsist 10:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uig

Thnaks for fixing my ham-fisted attempts at a disambig. I think that I've done it right for Tarbert. --JBellis 20:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

That waterspout picture is fascinating. Why do you suppose Franklin included that magic square on the page? User:Jpgordon 16:27, 30 Mar 2005

I couldn't say for sure. All the additional information about the illustration from its source is on the image description page on the Commons.

However, it comes from a collection of his works published some twenty years after his death. If you look at the 'on page' captions carefully, it looks like they relate the illustrations to other pages in the book. So it is possible that several illustration plates have been collected together and printed on a folio in a separate section of the book.

The two water spout diagrams refer to p26, whilst the magic square diagram refers to p326. So my guess is it comes from a completely different paper and is unrelated. (On the other hand, the caption at the bottom of the page says it was published on 1 April 1806, so he could be pulling your leg). -- Solipsist 16:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Advanced Wikipedian

Cheers for the invite to meta:The Advanced Wikipedian. I'm certainly no expert in the field but have given a go making it more like an Iambic pentameter. Hope it helps! I'll have a think about extending it and will be watching what happens (though I rarely visit meta). violet/riga (t) 23:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

April Fools day

In a reply to an April Fool's day prank on Requests for Arbitration, I placed a comment purportedly from you, but with the words "forged signature" immediately before "your" signature. I thought it was funnier coming from a solipsist than from me. I hope your sense of humour can encompass this.-gadfium 03:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem, although I've now put the comment into my own voice, and here's a better way to forge signatures. -- Solipsist 08:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FPC

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Tower of Hanoi 4.gif, 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.

FPC changes

Soon, most of the tasks of promoting an FPC will become automated, but we will be required to put a template tag with specific information on the FPC's vote page. Check out User talk:AllyUnion for the discussion. I'll probably make the template tomorrow sometime, and update the instructions for FPC promotion. --brian0918  06:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POTD

I'm afraid I don't know how the system worked, only that it is now deprecated, so I would suggest upgrading the old style user pages and deleting all the POTD_DAYNAME pages, Template: and MediaWiki:. Have fun! ed g2s • talk 18:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks, Solipsist, for supporting my recent RFA; I'll do my best. In answer to your comment, yes, a lot of the articles I have written are stubbish, and sometimes it is because there just isn't a lot of information available (especially biographical information for people dead 700 years); in other cases I'm just not done writing yet. :-) Best wishes and happy editing! Antandrus 02:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old POTD mechanism

I think redirects would be better than deleting them. I never followed how the new version of them worked so I might not be the best person to ask about this, but as far as I can tell, redirecting them all to Template:Pic of the day should work. Angela . 10:14, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'd actually meant to send this to you, but must have clicked the wrong link on my talk page. I'm glad you spotted it anyway :) Angela . 12:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

New Table of Contents (Lofnap)

That's nice! Very, very nice. I hated that other one. Thank you. Thank you also for finishing the divisions. It's so much easier to add stuff since they went in. And as far as the monomania goes, I don't know whether to be proud or run shrieking into the woods. Ten of the entries on the "before" list were, ack, mine. Has Wikipedia started a rehab center yet?

Mothperson 22:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blackberries fir0002 semi FPC

Hope you can come vote on this selection: [User:Fir0002/FPCandidates#Blackberries] Thanks--Fir0002 06:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where to put picture

Hi Solipsist, Do you know of any article on wikipedia where this unusual image could be put?

I cant really see anywhere to put it on the tree article Thanks --Fir0002 01:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting picture. At first it reminded me of a phenomenon you see in the wake of hurricanes, where flying depris sometimes get punched through tree trunks. However, in this case, I suspect that a dead branch has fallen off a neighbouring tree and come to rest in the fork of this one. Over the years the tree has then grown around the inclusion. You can see a small branch on the far end of the dead branch which would be impossible if it had been driven through the tree. Also somewhat curious is that the near end of the dead branch appears to have been cleanly sawn off.

But where to put it? I created the page Wikipedia:Pictures needing attention to answer these sorts of questions, but it has never much been used and has probably died of neglect by now.

I'm inclined to guess that this might be called inclusion (biology) but I can't find any reference to it at the moment (I've just had to write up inclusion (disambiguation) in the process....).

It is also reminiscent of the growth I've seen in some sub-tropical trees such as the Strangler fig, which drop adventitious roots that can grow into trunks smoothering other trees and walls. You might try using it as an example of grafting gone wrong ;-) But Wikipedia discourages jokes - although someone who reads that page would probably know the right place to put it. Better yet, why not ask the quesion on the Reference desk, I'm sure plenty of people would be interested. -- Solipsist 08:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say that the branch fell onto the tree and the tree grew over it. A possible explanation of the cleanly cut off branch is that once there was another tree (which for clarity i'll refer to as 'tree x') next to the one with the log in it (which i'll refer to as 'log tree') and somebody wanted to cut tree x, and there was a branch on tree x they cut off which fell on log tree, where after time the tree grew over it.

The 'Wikipedia:Pictures needing attention' sounds like a great wiki page. I've got quite a few images which need identifying and placing.

I've just been talking to a friend who knows some botany, and he is not convinced there is a term for this. However, he did mention that there are a couple of famously large Strangler figs near Cape Tribulation, North Queensland. One of them is known as the Cathedral Fig Tree.

Sorry, but I dont see where famously large strangler figs fit into this?! :)

My thinking is that these examples all fall into the category of a living organism with a foreign body embeded in it. The foreign body is inert and there isn't actually much interaction between the two. Another anologous situation, is a person who lives with an embedded bullet or shrapnel. When a Strangler fig starts growing on a host tree, I think it initially taps the host's sap as a parasite, but gradually out grows and kills off the host. At which point the host becomes an inert body enclosed by the Strangler fig, although it usually decays to leave a hollow core. However, you also often see Banyan trees and Strangler figs growing over, around and through a ruined building (for example [1], [2]). As such it is really a living plant with a stone wall embeded in it. So if there was a term for the 'growing over and around' behaviour of a Strangler fig, that could be what you are looking for. -- Solipsist 15:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, well what about putting it on the embedded page? Its a pretty rough meaning but it might be a good spot. What do you think? --Fir0002 23:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm also reminded that there is a related problem when growing bonsai. A common technique is to shape the trunk and branches by wiring - coiling thick copper wire around the branch to bend its growth in a certain direction. However, if the wires are neglected and not repositioned often enough, new growth will gradually envelope them, giving the impression that the wire is biting into the tree. -- Solipsist 11:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that may be a possible area in which this photo could be placed. I added another perspective on the log tree.

I've put up a note at the reference desk as well.

Thanks for your help! --Fir0002 12:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization art movements (response)

Hi Solipsist! My response to the art movement capitalization question is at User_talk:Sparkit. --sparkit 13:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked this out further, though the American Heritage Dictionary shows most art movements as lower case, the Cambridge' Dictionary shows ~~them~~ some as upper case. I'm inclined to go with upper case for two reasons. One, wikipedians most often use upper case, and, two, that would mean less changing of articles. I found discussion about the topic on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (capitalization) page. I'll pick up the discussion again in the next few days. --sparkit (talk) 01:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

And now another dictionary — Oxford, which aligns with American Heritage. Results are at [[3]] --sparkit (talk) 03:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

That looks good. It would probably be useful to move this page (or a finished definative version) to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts

I filled out a column for the Oxford Dictionary of Art and added two rows. One for Neoclassicism, because that was the only Neo-xxx that wasn't hyphenated. And Vorticism because it began with a V (stopping at S seemed a bit early) but also because I added a fair bit to that article ;-) -- Solipsist 08:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. I'll add the chart to the Art project. (I see you've joined the art project. Yipee!) --sparkit (talk) 13:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

FPC for Kurando-san

Please look over the suggested pseudocode outline at User:Kurando-san/FPC. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I responded you reply. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POTD

Hmm, using a named variable would be fine. I should check to see where the resized version is being used, and update it that way... or you can :) The trick is to let both POTD-width and POTD work appropriately. +sj + 22:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Francis Bacon

Oh, I know what you mean. My hypothesis is that he's a popular subject for school research projects, so lots of students end up at Wikipedia in their search for info. It's inevitable that many of these students will be bored, and once they notice the "edit this page" link, they realise they've found a new toy. (As supporting evidence for this hypothesis, both the IPs I've blocked for vandalising that article were school servers.) For similar befuddlement, see the edit history of liger. In this case, the recurrent vandalism can be blamed on a recent movie: Napoleon Dynamite. Such is wiki. :) -- Hadal 17:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boring pic swap anon

Thanks for the revert on my page. Bar steward wrote to me, acting the innocent, so I unblocked him (benefit of the doubt and all that). Ugh. –Hajor 20:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IFD

I was never notified about any of this, but go ahead and delete them if you want. --brian0918  13:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

I award you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your superb contributions to the Featured picture candidates. Your work is very much appreciated! - Sango 123 19:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well Thanks. I'm touched. -- Solipsist 20:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not vandalism

IMO: the edit to "The Scream" page is not vandalism, nor was it intended to be. I believe it to be relevant considering the 'photograph' is similar, if not identical, to the painting. In fact, this knowledge of their similarity may help prove the photo was faked.

Thank you for the nomination

Hi Solipsist, Thank you greatly for the picture nomination. It's motivation to get on with scanning the rest of my pictures in!. -- Wombat 23:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hey that would be excellent. And it suggests that WP:FPC is doing its job of encouraging people to illustrate the 'pedia with more great pictures. -- Solipsist 11:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Death Valley pic

From what I could find the ID looks reasonable, but it appears to be an annual. Desert annuals tend to be emphemerals - grow and flower after rains - so they aren't really xerophytes. Desert#Vegetation could use the pic, but as the section currently stands it doesn't really delve into annuals, though that could (should) be fixed. I'll keep an eye out for appropriate articles - I should really be putting some effort into (semi-)arid regions and their vegetation, given my background. Guettarda 15:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda. I hadn't actually noticed that Mav had updated the caption with an identification of the plant - I was still looking at the image name of 'unknown yellow flower'. But it is useful to know it probably isn't a xerophyte. You would think we would have an article somewhere that would like to be illustrated with the idea 'no matter how harsh it looks, life will find a way'. As you might have noticed the picture is a current Featured Picture Candidate at Yellow Flower Titus Canyon.

If you are interested there is a second botany conundrum at Log embedded in tree. No body seems to know what you should call it when a plant has a foreign body stuck inside it. (There is some additional discussion on this one above.) -- Solipsist 15:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

public domain & E. S. Curtis photo

Hi.

I notice that you have placed an old photo by Edward C. Curtis into the Commons area and, thus, consider it to be in public domain.

But what about the Northwest University's claim to ownership of the digital image, i.e. they say it's copyrighted (even though the original image copyright is expired), but anyone can use it under the Fair Use?

If your interpretation is correct, can I (or you) do the same for other photos I have uploaded? I have uploaded many such images (User:Ish_ishwar/pics.

Thanks — ishwar (SPEAK) 16:38, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

I would have thought, yes. In fact there are already are about 100 photos by Curtis on the Commons at commons:Edward Sheriff Curtis and its related category. I followed the pattern on those images and tagged with {PD}. If the underlying photos are PD, I can't see how the scans wouldn't come under the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case and thus be {PD-Art}.

On the other hand, Curtis died in 1952, so these should perhaps be {PD-art-life-50}, and Commons doesn't seem have that tag for that, just {PD-art} at 70 yrs. Possibly because copyright is 70 years after death in most European countries (and therefore many of the other Wikis). However {PD-US} would also apply for many of the volumes. It might be an idea to raise the question on the commons:Village Pump.

You might also be interested to know that a couple of Curtis' photographs have been nominated on WP:FPC. The 'Canyon De Chelly' photo is a classic, but I was thinking one of the portraits of a Chief, such as 'Sitting Bear - Arikara' might be a better option than the 'Hupa fisherman'. -- Solipsist 17:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POTD Tarantula

Hi Solipsist! Sorry, I had thought that the original (which was on the tarantula page) photo I upload had become a FP. Anyway I've replaced the orginal on the tarantula page so now it should be linked to something. Thanks --Fir0002 22:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A request

Since apparently I have an absolutely terrible eye for featured pics, could you take a look through User:Raul654/favpics (in particular, the section of Longwood Gardens pics I just added) and see if any are featured picture worthy? →Raul654 06:22, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Raul, that's a tricky one - they can be a fickle bunch when it comes to voting on WP:FPC. Half the time I can't predict the direction a nomination will take. I think you were pretty much on target with nominating Liz Roy's Iguana, although it could do with being a litte sharper and there are several folk who will routinely vote against any animal photo which doesn't show the whole animal. I'm surprised Sannse's lemur is getting votes - there used to be someone who routinely voted against any animal in a zoo.

On your Longwood Gardens pics; plants and flowers is a very tough category largely dominated by USGov photographers.

One of your more striking photos is Image:Strelitzia reginae1.jpg, but it doesn't stand a chance next to Image:Strelitzia larger.jpg
I think my favourite is Image:Aloe aristata.jpg, although I'm not sure how well it would be received. Its main appeal to me is the pattern, but that didn't help the Shanghai Hyatt nomination much.
You might also try Image:Split_Aloe.jpg which is interesting and could attract the techy voters. Its got some problems however. The depth of field focus is good at isolating the attention point on the break at the centre of the picture. But there is also something uncomfortable about it. Possibly because the heart of the plant is also highlighted by sunlight, which draws the eye to a blurred section of the image. A tighter crop on the middle 3rd of the picture might help. -- Solipsist 08:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTD Che statue

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about the POTD. By the way, Augusto Starita, the author of the picture, is a coworker of mine so the credits are fine as they are. Pilaf 18:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

What is the pattern? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding photograph

I have now added the copyright information that you suggested for the glider and gliding photos. Thank you for suggesting that Image:V20001.jpg should be nominated as a Featured Picture. Were you planning on nominating it or should I? Jmcc150 19:18 6 May 2005 (UTC)

RE: Millau viaduct image

i have added file info as your request. We all get a bit lazy now and then dont we ;)

Commons image move

Hi. Thanks for putting it so nicely. I was in a hurry to add it to commons so that the article Tamil wikipedia gets the image. In that hurry, I forgot the copyright message and simply linked it to the en image. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Formalization of the bot's processing of the comment

Please see: User:Kurando-san/FPC#Formalization_of_Bot.27s_Processing_comment. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your thoughts. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]