User talk:Ayacop/Archive4

File:Atriplex confertifolia.jpg

File:Atriplex confertifolia.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

-Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1ai3.png

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

upload history

I was down to 3 or 4 "known" Blanco images to restore. "Known" is that they were in the Category or in the gallery for them. I thought that there might be a couple of dozen more that were mis-located -- to be found either in a gallery for a species and not for the book itself or not located anywhere.

There were perhaps a hundred of these which I found in your upload history! That is a couple of dozen for each remaining image I thought was all of them!

So, I am here to complain about what happened to your images after you uploaded and located them here. Pestering an uploader is perhaps a problem that should not be tolerated here as the problem remains long after the pestering and the pesterer is gone.

I am curious at the value of the time spent undoing your upload work. I should think it would be a negative value. My feelings after finding so many images that were uncollected here right now tell me that it should be of an enormous negative value. A debt to intellectual evolution if that would be possible! -- carol (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

An "I am not intelligent enough to be a member of my species" tax!!!</rant> -- carol (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that cleaning them all and thinking of a Blanco category ("hell, in Unix I would have done ls *_Blanco*.jpg" whatever) was not my strength (yours, and I'm as impressed as others were of my upload), I might agree that work on old books has negative value. Mind you, I destroyed a lot time myself by long participation at pgdp.net. That lead me to the decision to do much more work on the biochemistry part of WP. Perhaps you have some interest that is equally 'modern' and educational? I can assure you that work on/with modern works is much more satisfying, if not necessary. I hope that you can rearrange to get out of the red. Best wishes. --Ayacop (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Category:Ayacop/Blanco was not your idea? Should we check the logs to see who made that in your personal space? -- carol (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It was, but only after the first volume was done and User:WayneRay talked about the Blanco article. Then I started to think. I never categorized the pictures of the first volume in a Blanco category, and I think WayneRay added only a part of them to the article. --Ayacop (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Albendazole.svg is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure Image:Albendazole.svg you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Images in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the image to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Leyo 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Lycorin.svg is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure Image:Lycorin.svg you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Images in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the image to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Edgar181 (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the chemical structure Image:Ethocybin.gif is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure Image:Ethocybin.gif you uploaded has been tagged as and is now listed in Category:Low quality chemical diagrams. Images in this category might be deleted after one month if there is no upload of an improved version, if there is no objection from the uploader or other users and if a better version exists. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload an improved version or simply allow the image to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Leyo 09:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

compliments to the chef

I have been thinking that it is not one single uploader using this login. If I am wrong about that, please forgive me for the mistake. If I am correct about this, I have a compliment for whoever was responsible for what looks like automated color correction of the Blanco images.

First, CSIC should rethink the javascript only downloading of those images. And wrapping not so great jpegs into pdf does not make a better digital document. I was comparing the nicer images here with the pdf extracted images from the site and whatever you did did not hurt them any more than the original handling of them did. The originals have tile problems and the images that were uploaded from Ayacop only have those same tile problems and no additional problems.

Here is the compliment part: your uploads have been easier to work with and much nicer to look at than the originals. It took some time to get that through my thick skull though since that usually is not the case after manipulations. In fact, I have never seen that before and that includes my corrections. Any person wanting to improve on them will do better to start with yours again. This morning I came up with this:

 0 241 0 255 1.110000
14 249 0 255 0.880000
15 245 0 255 1.000000
28 242 0 255 1.000000
 0 255 0 255 1.000000

and that is not as good as whatever was used there, but could be with a little more coffee and time spent by me.

I decided this am to leave the compliment for whoever came up with the RGB formula for the conversions which are here instead of spending the same time regretting the work I did. I should not have rotated my xcfs but even that is not helpful if CSIC did not save the scans in a lossless format since the masks I made would be for those specific scans.

If the conversions of the uploads were not automated; I am sorry again and I know the uploaders birthday within 30 days. I once read a rude description of one "sun sign" which was "Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?" Such personality traits have a good application and the world is a nicer place when said people find something worth this kind of attention.

Please don't point me to any java ToL crap either! I would rather that the compliment be given to whoever deserves it and just leave it at that:

"Very nice work." -- carol (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll add to the impression of multipersonality, because I can't remember exactly what I did in the GIMP to achieve results. That's partly because of the time that passed, and partly because I'm not a pro, who without doubt would just look up his notes. I remember it was only one or two fiddlings in the Color menu (contrast and what?) of the Gimp. Also, for this unprofessionality, the handling must have changed from Vol.1 to Vol.2 of the Blanco, if I recall correctly. --Ayacop (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tried contrast -- I never use this tool. I got it to work with Contrast at 10 and a change in the Levels: Value gamma to 1.10. Heh. Perhaps I will attempt to look at the source to see what contrast is equal to (it should be the same as moving the gamma pointer on the levels dialog but maybe it is moving the white end and the black end some also).

I have seen this one interesting thing on more than just the Blanco prints:

• 
• 
  - a lot of Green,+ some Red and Blue
• 
• 
  - a lot of Green,+ some Red and Blue
• 
• 
  - a lot of Green,+ some Red and Blue
• 
• 
  - a lot of Green,+ some Red and Blue

I was trying to match photographs when I could find them and the color shift was almost predictable except that these watercolors (I assume they were watercolor paintings) get mixed with different amounts of different pigments. I think the ink was made from elderberry juice. When I made jelly from that, I thought it was the stuff they made litmus paper from because it reacts that same way to acid.

• 
• - a lot of Green,+ some Red and Blue
  - a lot of Green,+ some Red and Blue

There were no photographs of this species being yellow. They were all pink. Perhaps if the species has the wrong identity.

I sure would like to know from CSIC if it was gimp-1.0 or imagemagik that caused the tiling of their scans.

I really dislike my situation right now. Your uploads have made killing this time which I am not enjoying much a not wasted death/use of a limited resource. Typing thanks here is not really going to express the actual appreciation I have. I don't know if my time is more valuable than these prints. It is more valuable than the quality of their original scans. Your research about what species name they are now and upload work made them easy to find and more impressively non-destructive manipulation. That is really rare. Are you nearsighted? -- carol (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah now I remember. Yes it was certainly Green but I wouldn't call a change from yellow to pink non-destructive, and you don't either, do you? --Ayacop (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Destructive of an acid based color shift. That word is a problem. Sometimes it is descriptive of an event that was clearly where there was something and now it doesn't exist. Or it can be used as a double negative, like I did. This starts to show the reason I don't like words. http://images.google.com/images?q=Merremia+peltata <-- white didn't fit into the color shift I had been seeing. -- carol (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Bibrocathol.svg is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure Image:Bibrocathol.svg you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Images in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the image to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pancuronium.svg

Hallo Ayacop. Das Bild ist zwar schon lange getaggt, aber könntest du doch reagieren? Meines Erachtens kann der Baustein entfernt werden. --Leyo 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bei File:Harmalin.svg habe ich einen Baustein angebracht. File:Propyphenazone.svg ist dagegen schon fast ein Jahr getaggt. Schau doch bei der Gelegenheit auch gerade mal, ob noch weitere Strukturen von dir mit „low quality“ oder „disputed“ getaggt sind und reagiere entsprechend. --Leyo 20:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Persin.svg is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure Image:Persin.svg you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Images in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the image to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --LabFox (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Verapamil.svg is disputed

Dispute notification

The chemical structure Image:Verapamil.svg you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Images in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the image to be deleted. In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Leyo 07:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Discussion regarding the Categories "Fossil xxx" is occurring on Wp:ToL (here). As a member of the project you input is requested in to gain a larger view of the communities opinion on how to handle the points raised. Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Ayacop!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:PolyAPolymerase 1FA0.gif was uncategorized on 28 September 2009.