User talk:Werothegreat

Welcome!

Hello, Werothegreat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Fungus Collaboration as of Jan 2007

Hi, I noticed you showed some interest in fungi previously. DYK there are no fungal Featured Articles on wikipedia at all? I've modelled this on the dinosaur collaboration which has yielded a few FAs. Please have a look and cast your vote and we'll try a real concerted attempt at an FA. Link here......Fungi Collaboration

(hope I got all the templates right...) cheers Cas Liber 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chromista collage.jpg

Great collage - but you can't take a "fair use" image and stick it in a collage and put in in the public domain. You may find something to replace the problematic panel on the commons. --Peta 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fungus collage.jpg

Please take a look at commons:Image:Fungus collage.jpg, I think you should list images which you used to produce it. Are they all in the public domain? Conscious 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Hierarchical nomenclature

Please do not change hierarchical nomenclature without (1) posting on the appropriate discussion page the reason for the change with (2) citation to the authority. Thanks. --Bejnar 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above poster. The hierarchical nomenclature of Plasmodium has been changed. It is actually correct but it now lacks the correct kingdom: protozoa. As Werothegreat may or may not know this 'kingdom' is a mess and undergoing revisions but at the moment (2007) is the correct taxonomy. Since altering the taxobox means re saving the entire page Im not going to change it - unless I have to add or delete more species which is quite possible. User:DrMicro

Thanks for the note. The taxonomy of this area is a complete mess at the moment. I would still appreciate it if (1) the use of edits to the taxobox are limited (the page is large so please be nice to the Wikipedia servers) and (2) if you do an edit at the 'top end' of things like taxonomy it would be nice to have a note in the discussion saying whay this was done simply because the taxonomy here is such a mess. DrMicro 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Taxonomy.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Taxonomy.GIF. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Postelsia GA feedback

See the talk page, cheers Pete.Hurd 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wero, I can't approve as a GA with the possibly unfree images, (I'm willing to call it a GA without the law links). Perhaps the source website might give permission if requested? (thanks for the nudge to archive my talk page, finally got around to doing that) Cheers, Pete.Hurd 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protista or whatever they are called

We may disagree with adding your taxonomies to Wikipedia, but feel free to go ahead and propose them all you want. Try to get them according to peer-reviewed scientific papers, though. As you know from reading the articles on all these families of single-celled eukaryotes, Wikipedia is in desperate need of attention in this area. I appreciate all the work you do to try to make Wikipedia better when it comes to Protist taxonomies. I've tried to change things in this area, too, for the photosynthetic ones, to no avail. KP Botany 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amoeba proteus / Chaos diffluens

Amoeba proteus and Chaos diffluens are synonymous. C. diffluens is the old name not really used since the 60's see: http://www.nies.go.jp/chiiki1/protoz/morpho/flagella/amoeba.htm#Amoeba%20proteus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvbishop (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

While Ameoba and Chaos are different genera the particular species Chaos diffluens has been reclassified as Amoeba proteus. There are still several other species in the Chaos genera (C. carolinensis for example) Jvbishop 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Euktree.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Euktree.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DopefishJustin 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Postelsia1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Postelsia1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DopefishJustin 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind my having "standardised" the above stub template somewhat; if there's any howto information editors need to know, the stub category page is generally a better location, as a rule of thumb. Pardon me only thinking to ask after the fact, but how many of these stubs are there? And I also notice there's no obvious corresponding permanent category: would it be useful to also create a Category:Chromalveolates or Category:Chromalveolata category? Alai 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights

Hi, I notice that some of the images I warned you about above have just been retagged as "NoRightsReserved". That's not a magic word that you can use to make everything all right, there has to be some proof that the copyright holder for the image has agreed to relinquish their rights in the image. A picture does not become public domain just because there's no copyright notice; quite the opposite, by law the "default" status is copyrighted and all rights reserved. If you really must have those images on Wikipedia, you have to contact the author and ask them to license the image under one of the free licenses listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For_image_creators. Ideally this should be done before uploading images in the future (or stick to images you create yourself, which is much simpler). If you are unwilling or unable to do the legal legwork necessary, Wikipedia CAN NOT legally use the images and they will be deleted. It sucks but it's the law. DopefishJustin 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seaveg seapalm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Seaveg seapalm.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DopefishJustin 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Postelsia1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Postelsia1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DopefishJustin 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postelsia

Please find more references, thanks. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you're finish. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, not only did you find more reference, but you also expand the article. I should give credits to you. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now given the article as GA status. By the way, I enjoy seeing some images created by you, especially the life cycle. It's fascinating to see interactive images. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 17:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox discussion

Hi,

Sorry to have taken so long to reply to your comment in this discussion - I missed it in my recent changes. Have I addressed your point? Thanks. Verisimilus T 19:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color change

You know, I forgot that this would impact the lower level taxa also, and that meant you had to change a lot of boxes. In the future, and I apologize for not realizing this, this can be done by a bot. We have a botany bot, I think Rkitko (whose name I always get wrong) runs it. Sorry!!!!! Also, when done by a bot people don't second-guess and revert, or they simply ask the bot. But you did the changes correctly, references the dicussion in your notes. KP Botany 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A taxobox colour changing thought..

Hi,

Just a thought, it might perhaps be easier to wait for template:taxobox colour to be updated (should be a matter of hours), then simply remove colour parameters (rather than updating them). Although the previous post suggests that bot assistance may be available if you ask the right person!

Verisimilus T 14:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Norman Lippert

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article George Norman Lippert, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments/banners

Hi Wero. Could you please try to add appropriate banners to pages you create, such as alternative taxonomical classification (tree of life banner). You don't need to assess them, but if you want to you can do that as well. Richard001 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Solar System XXX.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Solar System XXX.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Solar System XXX.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Solar System XXX.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Modeuktax.PNG

Hi,

Could you provide your sources for the classification in Image:Modeuktax.PNG? I'd like to be able to look it up.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Seapalmlifeani.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Seapalmlifeani.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —innotata 23:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Postelsia3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Postelsia3.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Palmstm.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Palmstm.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Werothegreat, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thanks for returning from your long wiki-break to help improve the encyclopedia. Hope you stick around :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Werothegreat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Taxonomy.GIF

The file File:Taxonomy.GIF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taxonomy.GIF listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Taxonomy.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Fungus Collaboration as of Jan 2007

Image:Chromista collage.jpg

Image:Fungus collage.jpg

Changing Hierarchical nomenclature

License tagging for Image:Taxonomy.GIF

Postelsia GA feedback

Protista or whatever they are called

Amoeba proteus / Chaos diffluens

Image copyright problem with Image:Euktree.jpg

Image copyright problem with Image:Postelsia1.jpg

{{Chromalveolate-stub}}

Image copyrights

Image:Seaveg seapalm.jpg

Image:Postelsia1.jpg

Postelsia

Taxobox discussion

Color change

A taxobox colour changing thought..

George Norman Lippert

Assessments/banners

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Solar System XXX.png

Unspecified source/license for Image:Solar System XXX.jpg

Image:Modeuktax.PNG

File permission problem with File:Seapalmlifeani.gif

File permission problem with File:Postelsia3.jpg

File permission problem with File:Palmstm.jpg

Science lovers wanted!

A barnstar for you!

ArbCom elections are now open!

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Proposed deletion of File:Taxonomy.GIF

File:Taxonomy.GIF listed for discussion