User talk:Jaknouse/Archive 2

Archive #1: User talk:Jaknouse/Archive 1

Monosolenium
Do you have a source? I've never heard of a fern gametophyte growing as a submerged aquatic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, go to the page susswassertang; it's posted there.jaknouse (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Llavea
A tag has been placed on Llavea, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * EXCUSE ME for not spending ALL my time on Wikipedia. Llavea is now at least a stub.  I'm working as fast as I can. jaknouse (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Dunlop Brackenridge
A tag has been placed on William Dunlop Brackenridge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of the most asinine pieces of crap I ever saw. I saved the page only because I needed to exit to get more information ready, was gone ONLY A FEW SECONDS, and you did this horseshit. I'm going back to working on it now, and deleted your snide little stub. jaknouse (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There, NOW look at the page. I'm sorry, I can't work as fast as Superman. jaknouse (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Georg Hans Emmo Wolfgang Hieronymus


The article Georg Hans Emmo Wolfgang Hieronymus has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no evidence

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &mdash; RHaworth 15:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I WILL get to this. I just have discovered that I can't spend ALL my time on Wikipedia.  Life interferes.  But Hieronymus is the citation for many species, and he is a historical botanist, and I WILL restore the page if deleted.  Thanks. jaknouse (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Dowell
A tag has been placed on Philip Dowell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Chuunen Baka (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't pretend that this is a particularly important botanist, but he has been the author of a number of plant names. However, I was not given a chance to do ANYTHING about this. I would think that a speedy deletion tag should have to allow at least a day for response.  After all, this was not a frivolous page, but a legitimate reference for scientific citations. jaknouse (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's about a two week backlog on new page assessment which gives the author time to build up the article. As I recall there was absolutely no indication of notability in the article. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted about 13 hours after the notice was posted. jaknouse (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
Hi, after seeing one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed quite so many articles as you over such a long period hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. Also whilst I'm here would you like me to restore Philip Dowell and move it to a sandbox for you? That way you could resume editing and move it to article space when its finished.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi Jaknouse; I wonder if you would be kind enough to use edit summaries a bit more. I know it can be a lot of trouble, but I would be grateful if you would consider it. Best wishes and please ignore my suggestion if it is unhelpful, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to do this. Are there particular types of pages you're watching?jaknouse (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw your edits to Aspidotis densa and Adiantum. They are on my watchlist because I've contributed photographs, but I haven't contributed content to ferns. I thought they were probably fine judging from the lack of drama on your talk page, but I saw only two summaries on the first page of your contributions. So I checked soxred's tool and saw that you've been contributing since before I started in 2005. I should have looked at your userpage, I know, but I often forget to do that. Splendid work, by the way. I have autofill turned on in my browser so I can add a common edit summary with one keystroke. I don't know if something like that would work for you. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I finally got the concept of categories thru my head, and realized that each thing should be entered at the LOWEST level category to which it belongs, but I'm also going to create a new category, fern species, that will list ONLY individual species pages for a comprehensive listing. I just wish I had a faster Internet connection. The drama, by the way, is because some people are overly eager to delete things quickly, without a simple check to see that they're being worked on. jaknouse (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see someone working on ferns. I hope to photograph most of the ferns in my region over the next year. Also, I plan to make more progress on the mosses, liverworts and lichens. It is vexing when an article is deleted abruptly, especially when the administrator should be able to recognize that it should be retained. Sometimes, to avoid that problem, I write an article offline and paste it into the Wikipedia edit box. That may help with a slow Internet connection, too. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyathea
Hi. I followed the single-genus classification of Braggins & Large (2004) in Tree Ferns. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to move a page over a redirect
Hi, I have no opinion (at least, not without doing some research) on whether Isoetopsida should be there or at Selaginellopsida, but moving it by cut-and-paste, as you seem to have done, is not the way to move a page. See Help:Moving a page (search for "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content" and also see the sections on redirects and such). In this case I think maybe you would need an administrator to perform the move, but that's no big deal; that's what WP:RM is for. Kingdon (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the edit, as your proposal constitutes original research and is supported neither by recent published classifications nor the ICBN. Priority is not applied above the rank of family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Modification to scientific classification template information in Diplazium
Hi, you recently changed the information in the genus template for the entry I generated a few months ago for the cliff fern. I understand your intentions in doing so, and see what you have done. However, you don't address the fact that in the article associated with the template I explain specifically why the classification you revised is now considered outdated and I provide an external reference to a scientific journal to verify this. Your revision back to the "old school" classification scheme does not include any explanation (other than the use of the word "various") which, to me, feels a little too brief for a change that changes a fundamental and, as far as I know, contrary-to-conventional-scientific-knowledge fact about this plant.

If I am in the wrong here, please let me know. I love being corrected when I am wrong, and I will admit up front that I am not a professional botanist, merely a "professional amateur". For the moment I will have faith that you completed your revision in full knowledge of the argument that occurs along with my citation but for some reason left it in the article...(?). Can you explain this better for me? I am confused. Thanks. KDS 4444 Talk  08:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The most recent and by far the most comprehensive genetic and cladistic study of the ferns indicates clearly that if this genus is placed in the Woodsiaceae, then the families Blechnaceae and Onocleaceae must also be included, as well as all the other athyrioid ferns. I have no objection to this if other people agree.jaknouse (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem at the moment is that you are listing Diplazium in Athyriaceae, but the references provided place the genus in either Dryopteridaceae or Woodsiaceae. In this--and other fern taxonomy--we need, at the least, either a citation of an author who -proposes- the classification you are using (i.e., not merely an author who provides a phylogenetic hypothesis from which the classification you are using can be derived), or to use a classification supported by existing references.Paalexan (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
Remember redirects are #REDIRECT Target page name. I had to correct a few you made incorrectly. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. That's the formula I always use, and I always wait until it loads to make sure that it reads correctly.  I did goof up the one change from Isoetopsida to Selaginellopsida, I have to admit.  Is that what you're talking about? jaknouse (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like these edits prompted Gigs' msg. Thank you for the edit summaries! Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheilanthaceae
Please provide a reference for an authority who has circumscribed the family in this way. The only paper cited on the page places this group as a subfamily of the Pteridaceae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A second citation has been added, but neither does this one circumscribe the pteridoid ferns consistently with the recent re-arrangement on wikipedia (e.g., Nayar does not recognize a "Cryptogrammaceae"). As it stands, this re-arrangement appears to violate [|WP: No Original Research]. Paalexan (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack warning
Please remove the personal attack against me that you made on your user page and at Talk:Starved_Rock_State_Park with this edit. Such statements violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF and could get you blocked. You might also want to read WP:BRD to see how to more effectively interact with other editors. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Novaseminary, you are one of these ANONYMOUS editors. I did no illegitimate edits, and I tried to communicate with you, but you have deliberately blocked any feedback.  If I could have discussed this with you, I would have done so politely, but you deliberately prevent discussion of your peremptory edits. jaknouse (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the one specific thing that triggered my concern was the edit on Starved Rock State Park, where you removed the reference to the Plum Island preserve. This is an important part of the area's ecosystem, and while at Starved Rock, I found that, talking to other visitors, many of them were there specifically to see the bald eagles that roost at Plum Island.  In fact, I saw one in a tree not thirty feet from me.  I did not include this kind of hearsay, obviously; I only included a factual reference that was relevant to Starved Rock.  Would you remove a reference to Yellowstone National Park from the page on Grand Teton National Park?  When there are relevant connections, we should note them -- Wikipedia IS meant to be encyclopedic. jaknouse (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You put me on you "list" because of one edit I made, which I explained via an edit summary, and even though you agreed with some of the other changes I made in he same edit? Yikes. WP:RELAX. And I have never "blocked contact", nor could I even if I wanted to. You can post to my talk page like anyone else. As for being anonymous, most editors are; that is WP policy. If you don't like it, your problem is not with me, but WP. And others have already mentioned it, but please don't rely on your personal knowledge. Information needs to be sourced. WP:RS. Novaseminary (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources
You also might benefit from taking a look at WP:INCITE for how to properly cite sources. Adding inline ELs as you have done on several articles lately is not the way sources are cited on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Riddle State Nature Preserve


The article Riddle State Nature Preserve has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:N. Zero gNews archive or RS gBook hits. Needs some third-party sources to establish notability and searching and talk page comments lead me to believe such sources do not exist.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Novaseminary (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Margaret Creek for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret Creek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Margaret Creek until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Riddle State Nature Preserve
I added a reference to Riddle State Nature Preserve and removed the prod tag. If other scholarly articles have been published about Hawk Woods or the preserve, please add them as references. You might consider adding your mapping information to Google Maps. Please see http://maps.google.com/help/maps/mapcontent/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A few things-mostly your "Shit list"
You might want to check out WP:CITE, I've noticed a few of you edits don't have any. Here is a page with easy use templates Citation templates. Also, the "Shit list" on your user page, please remove that post haste. Such lists are strongly discouraged here. Thanks,  He  iro 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. The "shitlist" is because these are people who are hiding their identities while taking illegitimate actions, and I stand by it. jaknouse (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I will take this to WP:ANI to ask for other opinions on the matter.  He  iro 20:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And I'll try to find references. However, the thing about Serpent Mound is clearly stated on the Highlands Sanctuary website. I do intensive field work in Ohio and extensive and intensive mapping, and much of what I post in geographical references is from personal knowledge.  It's not original research, it is what it is. jaknouse (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, And about the "personal knowledge" thing, that is the definition of WP:OR. {Please find cites to reliable third party sources. He  iro 20:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You will note that the list has been removed from your userpage. Per the discussion at ANI, maintaining the list violates No personal attacks, summarised as "Comment on content, not the contributor". Should you revert the removal, or seek to return the list in another form or otherwise example those or any other editors in a negative light - other than when participating in the various dispute resolution venues - you will be blocked. Please regard this as an only warning. If you have issues with some editors, use the dispute resolution processes available. It should be noted that anonymous editing is allowable, so issues must be directed at violations of the policies and guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's something I'd like an answer to. I stated in the Glouster, Ohio article that the village is entirely within the Sunday Creek watershed.  Someone added an "unreferenced" tag to that.  That is a simple fact that is obvious from any map.  So how do I reference that? jaknouse (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try a google books search or news search. If true, I would imagine a book, scholarly article, or newspaper clipping on the town or the watershed would mention this. Original research is not ok on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My real point is that the prohibition on "original research" can be taken too far. When it violates common sense, it has been taken too far.  For instance, I make maps.  By many of the standards of Wikipedia, that grossly violates the original research.  Does that mean that we can ONLY publish maps that have already appeared in a third-party source?  Also fotos: I post fotos that I have taken.  This, also, should constitute "original research."  Should we only post fotos that have already appeared in third-party sources?  Stating that Glouster is entirely within the Sunday Creek watershed is a direct result of my making the map. When we make tables correlating factors on a subject that have not before appeared in precisely such a table, that would also seem to constitute "original research" as per Wikipedia.jaknouse (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OR goes into some of these issues (e.g., WP:OI). I would read it, then post there on its talk or on article talk, as appropriate, if you are still in doubt. You might also want to read WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Novaseminary (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Trimble Community Forest
I noticed a slight article from WOUB Radio/TV (NPR) mentioning the Forest. I added it to your article, but you may wish to review. Delete it if you wish. It adds little additional information, but seems to confirm some. Tkotc (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There was also a mention made here: www.sundaycreek.org/publications/SCWGSplashSpring09.pdf. And here: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/01/state-evicting-longtime-renters-of-land-given-to-create-preserve.html and here (Google cache) http://www.ruralrambler.org/2007_11_01_archive.html. Not sure if these will be of any interest, but since you wrote an article on the area I thought I'd bring it to your attn. Tkotc (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything helps. Thanks! I'm concerned about an overly-strict application of the "noteworthiness" policy.  It's not like Wikipedia electrons are crowding us off the planet, and it is about something real, concrete, observable, and occupying a significant space on the planet surface.  Having said that, I can live with deletion of this, if that's what it comes to, but not some other things that are definitely more significant. jaknouse (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo request
If you get the chance, would you be willing to help illustrate National Register of Historic Places listings in Athens County, Ohio? I've done a lot of work on other Ohio counties, but Wikipedia hadn't yet been started the last time that I was in Athens County. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a great project! I'll try to help with this. jaknouse (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've got pics up for most of these, now. Will try to get the rest. jaknouse (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All entries now have a foto posted. jaknouse (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Twenty-one Ohio county lists are now fully illustrated (there's a complete list, which includes fully-illustrated lists from all states), plus the downtown Cincinnati list and a list of churches in the far western part of the state that were added to the National Register together.  Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Cave swallow nest.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Cave swallow nest.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:El Capitan 2.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:El Capitan 2.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Turkey Run covered bridge.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Turkey Run covered bridge.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sequoiadendron2.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Sequoiadendron2.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Hocking Hills State Park
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hocking Hills State Park, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. OSU1980 20:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

New fern initiative
I've started a new initiative to try to improve the coverage of ferns in the northeastern US: see WikiProject Pteridophytes/Northeastern America Initiative. You've probably contributed the majority of the existing content covered by the project; I'm hoping to attract a few more interested editors to help with these articles. Choess (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rainbow Gathering peace prayer.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rainbow Gathering peace prayer.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:from userpage

 * [#from_userpage Re:from userpage]

Yes, the problem is "I certainly release the image to the public domain, but am not sure how to approach this, since I am not the author of the CONTENT of the photo". According to participants of discussion on the commons image (unfortunately) should be deleted so I nominated it for deletion. And, please use User talk:Bulwersator rather than User:Bulwersator to ask questions. Bulwersator (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was in a hurry and thought I was on your talk page. It wasn't intentional. jaknouse (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Halesia monticola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George (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 the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. Stupid typo.jaknouse (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Whiteoakchampion.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Whiteoakchampion.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify the meaning of this template - nearly a decade ago, you uploaded this image. Another user came behind you and added a GFDL tag to it.  But they, of course, cannot license one of your images.  Could you, if you wish to provide an appropriate license, go to that image description page and replace the stricken tags and my comment with something like this?   Thanks, --B (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I added that tag years ago, I'm pretty sure, just not from my user account. In any case, when I posted this image, there was no convenient way to denote copyright privileges. And there still is no convenient way to change a page like this. I just clicked every link on the page, and there's no option for changing the copyright. I shouldn't have to spend an hour researching how to do this. Tell you what. Give me the language to embed, and I'll do it. 132.235.46.216 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

'''
 * Oops. Forgot to log in. The above is my message. jaknouse (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the two young girls in the foto are my daughters, and I give my permission for my minor daughters to be portrayed in the image. jaknouse (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you go to this URL - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Whiteoakchampion.jpg&action=edit - and add the following template ...

'''


 * ... all will be well. You can remove  if you like or I can clean the rest up once you add the template, I can fix the rest.  Thanks. --B (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Now I see you already gave it to me, and I misunderstood. Since I have to use public computers for Internet access these days, I just haven't been able to keep current on things Wikipedian. jaknouse (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --B (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)