User talk:Tameeria/Archive 2

Cytoplasm
Hi! You placed a merge box in the article called Cytoplasm, so I am still waiting if you add in some opinion why.--Juan de Vojníkov 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment. Sorry it's late - I was away from the computer for a while. - tameeria 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nigericin
Hello, Just thought I should let you know that I've switched Talk:Nigericin from WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (per your Feb & May edits) to WikiProject Pharmacology, following a recat of the article. Clicketyclack 10:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MCB Evaluation of HHV ICP0 article
Greetings! Thanks for your evaluation of the article HHV Infected Cell Polypeptide 0 (ICP0). You evaluated the article in April, and I have revised it considerable since. I wonder if you revisit the evaluation? ManVhv 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Elbe Tunnel Comments
Your input was well appreciated and key to the advancement of my arguemnt. Ich wünsch dich ein Schön Weihnacht und Schön Neu Jahre. Danke, -MKLPTR, MKLPTR (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I felt the need to jump in because I'm a "Hamburger Deern" myself. The only times I've heard people referring to the tunnel as the "new" one is when they also mentioned the "old" one in the same conversation (which is called "Alter Elbtunnel" much more frequently than "St. Pauli Elbtunnel" btw, although the second version is the "official" name for it). Frohes Fest ebenfalls! - tameeria (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweet!! Eventually I want to move back to Deutscland FOREVER. My city of Choice would be Kiel, as I have a freind Arbeiten Für radio sender Delta Radio Aus Kiel (in Moin Moin Land). But if I had to live in a big city in Deutschland I would defenitly choose Hamburg. I have been all through the country and Hamburg and Ganze Nord-Deutschland (Niedersachsen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schleswig-Holstein and the Hansestädten Hamburg und Bremen) is far better and a great "Off the beaten path" perspective of Deutscland, that counters the OVERLY touristed Bayern (for what reason I do not know). For your pleasure I have provided a list of cities I have been to that shows you how well I can base my oppinions of (in a comparitive sense) Deutsch Städten and where my opinians of Deutschland could possibly come from:

* Ansbach * Aschaffenburg * Bad Durkheim * Bad Hersfeld * Bamberg * Berchtesgaden * Berlin * Bonn * Boppard * Bremen * Bremerhaven * Köln * Dortmund * Dresden * Düsseldorf * Eckernförde * Eisenach * Erfurt * Flensburg * Frankfurt * Füssen * Gießen * Göttingen * Hamburg * Hannover * Heidelberg * Idar-Oberstein * Kaiserslautern * Karlsruhe * Kassel * Kiel * Koblenz * Konstanz * Landstuhl * Leipzig * Mainz * Mannheim * München * Nürnberg * Pirmasens * Rostock * Saarbrücken * Sinsheim * Stuttgart * Suhl * Trier * Ulm * Wiesbaden * Wilhelmshaven * Würzburg * Zweibrücken Hopfully this makes me at least more educated than some other Americans on the Deutsch land and people. Ich Hoffe du hast Urlab in Ganzen USA, Gleich ich hast Urlab in Ganze Deutschland. Aber ich in Deutschland Urlab nur Bei Auto. WAS? Du Fragt! Für voll Autobahn Spaß!! ;) Tschüß, Mike MKLPTR (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - I have a feeling many Americans going to Germany are "Autobahntouristen" and end up going to Bavaria. I'm guessing it has to do with southern Germany having been the "US Zone" after WWII, so many people have a grandfather or father who was stationed there while serving in the army. Northern Germany was the "British Zone" and I've found that most Brits don't feel like visiting Germany very much. I guess it's too close and too similar. - tameeria (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:DarwinFig139.png
Hello, I noticed you added this pic to the page on Darwin's book, but it seems to come from Darwin Online, with which we were recently engaged in a copyright issue. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Darwin Online. Also, please try to upload free (e.g. PD) images there, not at Wikipedia. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. I was going to upload additional pictures, but I guess I'll hold off on that then. It would be odd for these images to be copyrighted though because 1) Darwin has been dead for 125 years, 2) they were originally published back in 1880, and 3) to the best of my knowledge faithful reproductions such as a scan from a book are not copyrightable. Maybe UK copyright on this is different from US copyright though and I am by no means an expert on copyright law. Through our library I could check out the 1898 version of the book published by D. Appleton, New York and maybe scan myself from there. But that strikes me as a rather ridiculous exercise in wasting my time on something that shouldn't be an issue in my opinion. - tameeria (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, such is the way of things. Apparently the UK allows scans to be copyrighted in some (not very clear cut) cases. They say they've done a bit of touch-up work on the scans, so that constitutes 'labour', which is considered as well as 'creative' aspects in the UK, so I believe. I don't think that is considered in other countries though. It looks like the safest path is just to scan everything ourselves, which is tiresome, but at least we can make it PD. Would be nice if we had a Charles Darwin WikiProject here; collaborating on getting scans up from his major works would be one possible goal for such a project.


 * I suppose I should nominate it for deletion then, along with any others from Darwin Online that are on en.wiki. Are there any others? I can't find any by searching the image namespace, but then I can't find yours either so I'm not sure the search is too reliable. Richard001 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have only uploaded this one image so far. I'll inquire with the library tomorrow to see about checking out the book (1898 US edition) to replace it with a scan of my own. It just seems totally silly. If "touch-ups" confer eligibility to claim copyright, can I do so, too? After all, I've 1) cropped the image, 2) converted it from color to black&white, 3) changed the contrast, 4) used the eraser to get rid of some lettering showing through from the back side of the page, and 5) converted it to a different file format. I wouldn't dare to claim copyright for such "work" and I hadn't done it if I wasn't convinced it was public domain to start with. - tameeria (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you would have to come for the UK to do that, but if you did maybe. However, I think because it is only on en.wiki and not Commons, and only says 'PD in the US', I think it is safe. Of course, it would be ideal to have fully PD scans and at Commons. Richard001 (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Claiming copyright on scans of public domain works strikes me as ridiculous enough that I went ahead and put a hold on the book. The library has to get it from another university close by but if everything works out as planned I should be able to get it tomorrow afternoon. I was just looking for a PD illustration for the article on nyctinasty but if I do get my hands on the book, I can scan more than just one figure of course. I have to see what the book's condition is and how the scanning goes, but what else might we want/need from it? In the meantime, the whole book including all figures is also available on Google Books if images taken from Darwin Online need to be replaced, although the Google scans are lower resolution/quality. I'm hoping to do some higher resolution scans of the images we might want. - tameeria (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) - Addendum: Project Gutenberg seems to fully agree that scanning and touch-ups do not confer a new copyright, but again their evaluation is based on US copyright law. - tameeria (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I am completely scandalized about the state of UK intelprop law in a way that never could have happened to me if I weren't a wikipedia editor and hadn't run across this particular conversation. I'm especially saddened because the image that started the dispute seems to have been deleted (since it is redlinked above). Tameeria, if you actually made that trip to the library and did those new scans and edits, I pronounce you a Hero of the (intelprop-law reform) Revolution. And perhaps you are a Hero of the Revolution just for suggesting that you might do those things. arkuat (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight
NCurse work 16:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Peel (fruit)
Answered your inquiry at Talk:Peel_%28fruit%29 BriefError (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnivorous alga
It has come to my attention that you have reinstated Carnivorous alga despite the consensus not to move Predatory dinoflagellate back to Carnivorous alga. I believe your purpose was to circumvent the page-move decision, which warrants review of Content forking. Recreating the old page is equivalent to moving it back, just with both moved pages intact. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I split out the media use of the term, which actually was your suggestion so I assumed there was consensus to do this. Why the heck did you suggest the split in the first place if this wasn't your intention? What was your intent behind it? If you were baiting me into doing it so you can cry "content fork" - quite frankly I don't appreciate it at all. And I fail to see how these two articles could be content forks as they are now quite different from each other. - tameeria (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carnivorous alga
An article that you have been involved in editing, Carnivorous alga, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Carnivorous alga. Thank you. ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how deleting this article would improve Wikipedia? I don't get it. All I get is that you are on some sort of crusade against any attempt to make this a useful article. I've tried rewriting it based on your comments. As I stated above, I thought you agreed with this as it was actually your suggestion to split it out. If it's still not good enough, then how should it be improved? Is there any purpose behind this delete request other than wasting my time again? This is getting really frustrating. What the heck do you want to achieve with all this?!? As I said, I fail to see how this might improve the usefulness of Wikipedia. - tameeria (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, -  Newsletter Bot ' Talk  15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)''

Redirects from plurals
Hi Tameeria. When creating articles, remember to create redirects from plurals, e.g. with pulvinus (i.e. pulvini). Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-transcriptional modification
You rated the content in the above article as a High-rating Stub. I have expanded it. Please take a look at it now. I am still working on it though. Kindly leave messages on my talk page regarding what you think should be needed in the article. I intend to cover RNA polymerase I (ribosomonal RNA synthesis) and RNA polymerase III (tRNA synthesis). SholeemGriffin (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed mergers: genophore to nucleoid, ovum to egg (biology)
I was just starting to think about working on your proposed merger of genophore to nucleoid, and thought I'd ask your opinion about en.wikipedia's having two different articles (and different sets of redirects to them), Egg (biology) and ovum. I invite you to comment on the talk pages of those articles. arkuat (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.


 * Image:Feuerzangenbowle-movie.jpg
 * Image:Feuerzangenbowle-movie2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)