User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 49

ARCHIVE PAGE 49: January 2012

Happy New Year
To everyone working in or for the encyclopedia,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone. All the very best fromInvertzoo(talk) 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Uploading images and copyright questions
Hi Invertzoo! I made a new shell friend in Russia, a cone guy, who is an awesome photographer and has thousands of beautiful cone shells which he has photographed. His name is Alexander Medvedev. He has a website devoted to his shells, and has seen our Wikipedia articles. He has given me permission in writing via Facebook to download his images and upload them to Wikicommons to use in the cone snail articles on Wikipedia. He also has uploaded images to Gastropods.com and Schooner Specimen Shells cone shell pages. His exact words to me are: "Dear David, I give you full permission to use my photos in your article. For me it is an Honor !!! Some of my photos used http://www.gastropods.com/Taxon_pages/Family_CONIDAE.shtml http://schnr-specimen-shells.com/ConidaeChecklist.html Best regards, Alex"

I have uploaded one of Alex's images as a test. See Conus andremenezi for the second image, below the taxobox. My image is inside the taxobox, Alex's image is below. My question is, does this suffice to use the images and upload them for the Wikipedia Encyclopedia copyright purposes? If not, what do we need to do to allow for it? Do I need him to sign some lawyer written form, or is what I have from him enough. He seems more than happy to share his images. Your thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I am not really the best person to ask about this, as I have only done this once, and that was a few years ago. Let me ask User:Moonriddengirl, who is the best expert I know on Copyright issues. In your case of course we are talking about multiple images, not just one.


 * I think you have to get Alex to send a filled-in official permission form via email to an email address at Wikimedia which is answered by volunteers using a OTRS system (of tickets and queues). Your ticket will need to be in the Permissions queue. I believe the form you will need to send him for him to use in his email to Wikimedia is the declaration of consent form.
 * You may want to read this essay.


 * But more importantly, let's see what Moonriddengirl says. Invertzoo (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. It's important that Alex realizes he would be giving away his images not just to Wikipedia, but to the world. Invertzoo (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Invertzoo!!!! I may have the best solution.  I got Alex to upload one image, then replaced my uploaded image with his one at Conus andremenezi.  Once he sees how easy it is to upload and place images into articles he may become hooked!  His own website is hugely impressive, with 2300 images uploaded, so it is a fair guess that he is a type "A" personality and has a compulsive streak like some other people we both know!!!Shellnut (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That solution does work, Shellnut. :) If the images have already been published somewhere else (even on Facebook), he should still send the consent form at declaration of consent form, with a link to his website. That will prevent somebody thinking he may be pretending to be the copyright owner. You might want to warn him that his text and watermark may be removed from the image. If he uploads it here, he is not only granting the right to the world to use it, but also to modify it! See WP:WATERMARK. He should be comfortable with that before uploading more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moonriddengirl!!! I have had some extensive dialogue with Alex on Facebook via the message feature.  We are on right now in my "flip screen".  I made it extremely obvious that once uploaded the images are given away for all purposes and can be used, modified, etc.  He also logged onto Wikicommons and made his own account there, so he has had to have read and checked all the boxes stating that he understands the rules.  I hope he gets as into this as the rest of us!Shellnut (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: MiszaBotII not archiving?
Hi Susan, nothing has changed in the settings. Let us give the bot one more week. I will let the bot-owner know if it does not kick in by then. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 02:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The goddess of love Venus
Hi Invertzoo!!! So, do you like Venus on a "half shell" of Pectinidae? I saw your revised caption and I think it is excellent. We have quite a few new members in that project and I thought a little art would be appropriate. Shellnut (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought it was very nice to have something that beautiful at the top. Invertzoo(talk) 02:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Message
09:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Deroceras panormitanum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Giant tube worms
Hi, I think there is an error of omission in the new Kuphus article and the associated DYK, just past. I am a physicist and know nothing of these matters, but I have posted what I think I discovered on the Kuphus talk page. Hope you can check it out, and make a correction if needed. Thanks,Wwheaton (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for pointing this out to us by leaving a message both here and on the talk page of the article. I vaguely noticed this problem a little while ago, and I should have fixed it immediately. I had no idea that the article was about to be nominated for DYK or I would have made the fix immediately. Thanks so much again. Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Strombus alatus
Hi there Susan! How very nice! I've seen live colonies of Strombus pugilis. As you already know, they're closely related... Behavior may provide some good clues on what these two species differ from each other! I'd love to chat about it =)! Best wishes! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Shipworm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MCZ(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Gastropod clades
I asked a question in the Gastropods project forumhere but nobody seems inclined to answer. I suspect that some of the members of the project are more interested in the correct taxonomy being used than in providing useful, well laid out articles for Wikipedia. In any case, I may not have explained myself well so I give you 2 examples with different taxobox styles, Elysia viridis and Elysia bangtawaensis. Because I am relatively inexperienced/unqualified, I tend to copy taxoboxes such as theE. viridis one when writing articles but I would prefer to use the E. bangtawaensis one, - an article specially written in the last hour to illustrate what I'm talking about. Is that taxobox OK?

Thank you also for the improvements you made to Kuphus. It was an awkward article to write, dealing as it did with both the genus and the species, the taxonomic issues and the "giant tube worm" common name.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Cwmhiraeth. You are welcome to any small improvements I can make to your articles. Thank you so much for your numerous excellent articles which are a fabulous addition to the project! Yes, we do follow Bouchet & Rocroi taxonomy from 2005, BUT, more recently the taxonomy of some groups of gastropods has been updated considerably based on new research, see Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005.


 * In our taxoboxes we don't mention just one clade; for the more evolved groups we try to show the position of the taxon in the whole nesting set of clades to which it belongs.


 * If you look at the branching cladogram on the Bouchet & Rocroi article page you will see that the Saccoglossans formed part of the Opisthobranchia which were in turn part of the Heterobranchia. However Jörger et al. (2010) redefined the major groups of the Heterobranchia and created the new cladesEuopisthobranchia and Panpulmonata.


 * If you look at the Panpulmonata article you will see it has a cladogram (branching diagram) for the Heterobranchia, and that will give you the new correct sequence of nesting clades for the Sacoglossans.


 * I hope this is not too insanely complicated! Invertzoo (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to go along with displaying clades in this way, - I just wanted an explanation. However, looking at the Elysia viridis article again, the only way you can tell it is a Sacoglossan is from the text. Perhaps that particular clade should be bolded in the taxobox? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you maybe already changed the taxobox (?) but clade Saccoglossa is listed in there above clade Placobranchacea. Our convention is that we don't bold a taxon in the taxobox unless the article is only about that taxon. It's going to take us all a while to get used to this new taxonomy, where Saccoglossa is no longer one of the most major divisions of the gastropods. We still use the term a lot because most people who study gastropods are still very familiar with that term. (If you feel that we should consider changing the way we do things in the taxoboxes you are welcome to raise the idea on the project talk page, although you might have to do a lot of persuading to get people to change their minds about anything radical.) As I mentioned before, your work is really fantastic, you make such lovely articles from scratch. I think you make the nicest new articles that we have ever had, for articles that are produced on a regular basis! I hope I have answered your questions adequately, if I am missing the point in any way please let me know.Invertzoo (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for the compliments. I will go along with the current taxobox practice and will alter the new article Elysia bangtawaensis to conform. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)