User talk:Junglenut

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Junglenut!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Screenshot Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants website.png

File:Screenshot Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants website.png 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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: non-free website screenshot Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 198.55.50.33.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File sources

Hello Junglenut. Please make sure to provide the full URL to the page where you found an image. Just specifying "iNaturalist", like you did for File:Calamus-muelleri-01.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-02.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-03.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-04.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-05.jpg, and File:Calamus-muelleri-06.jpg. I have fixed those files for you, but you should be aware that files without a complete and accurate source may be deleted. Please let me know if you have any questions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll keep it in mind —  Junglenut | talk  05:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Geogroup

Hi Junglenut - please do not remove {{Geogroup}} tags, they are far from "useless" (to quote your edit summary). The links to Wikispecies should also be left too. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the wikispecies link is duplicated in the wikidata taxobox. As for the geo link, it is supposed to provide information about the range of the species using data from the photos. However in this case, all the photos are mine and represent a very tiny fraction of the area of occupation of this species. Cheers, Steve —  Junglenut | talk  11:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(All bar one of the photos!) —  Junglenut | talk  11:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Aye, but there'll be more photos from other parts of the range eventually! It's also a very good way of finding erroneous geocodes (the commonest error is people accidentally forgetting the minus sign for southern & western hemispheres), and for selecting cultivated/zoo specimens to transfer to (cultivated), (captive), etc., subcategories. The Wikispecies link may be a duplicate, but it is difficult to find; keeping it in Commons too makes it much easier to find. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@MPF Ok, I'll accept that there are uses for the geogroup tag that I wasn't aware of, but I would prefer to see it at the bottom of the wikidata infobox. Re the wikispecies link I am not convinced. I don't believe the link in the wikidata infobox is hard to find - but if I accept that argument then I must also accept that the wikidata and wikipedia links are also hard to find, so should we add little boxes for them as well? I say no, this is clutter. If someone is looking at a commons page and wants to look at the wikispecies page for it, that immediately says they are familiar with the relationships between the sister sites and will know where to look. Someone who is not aware of these different sites probably wont be browsing commons in the first place. If there is no defined policy about the placement of the {{ws}} tag, I will continue to leave it out of pages that I work on. Cheers, Steve —  Junglenut | talk  09:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ficus henneana

I have not reverted the page, if you look at the history, you will see that I have only added the link to wikispecies. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Australian-postage-stamp-nymphaeae-gigantea.jpg

File:Australian-postage-stamp-nymphaeae-gigantea.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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Modern stamps of Australia are clearly copyrighted. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1Adamant1, the source page of this file clearly says it is CC-BY. —  Junglenut | talk  04:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Junglenut: So what? A user can put whatever license they want to on a file when they upload it. Same goes for wherever they got it from. But Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia is pretty clear that Australian stamps created after 1974 are copyrighted and I can't image why there would be an exception for this single stamp. Otherwise be my guest and provide some evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, just to expand on that. The image appears to have originally come from here here before being reposted on another site as CC-BY. If you read that sites terms here they clearly say that "all images are copyright." The source of the image on their websites says absolutely nothing what-so-ever about it licensed as CC-BY either. In fact there's clearly a copyright symbol right next it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Piper caninum and Piper lanatum

Hey .

What's the difference between Piper caninum and Piper lanatum ?

BrisVegas :– 211.30.18.28 03:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing. Piper caninum is considered to be a synonym of P. lanatum. See the taxon page at POWO for details. —  Junglenut | talk  07:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In the evidences (minus the English Kew Gardens and Herbarium, historical colonial, power tripping), POWO's wrongly way out of date on this Australian Piper caninum example. More out of date than the 2007 Flora of Au volume 2, the Cooper, Wendy E. and William T. Cooper (2004) Fruits of the Australian Tropical Rainforest, the Cooper, Wendy E. and William T. Cooper (1994) Fruits of the Rainforest, the Chew, W.-L. (1972) Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 53: 5–6, the 1826 protologue: Blume, C.(K.)L. von (1826) Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 11: 214, and so on. You're a laughing stock going on about POWO as if it were more up to date and more accurate than every other source, when obviously it's not at all, and POWO–WCVP's major curator Rafaël Govaerts says so (it is not up to date in numerous parts (hopefully a minority of it) ), in emails with me (because he's not pretending so much). BrisVegas:– -211.30.29.126 08:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL BrisVegas:– --49.182.179.185 12:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL BrisVegas:– --211.30.174.30 14:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL BrisVegas:– --120.22.163.81 12:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

LOL BrisVegas:– --120.22.121.203 03:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

LOL BrisVegas:– --120.22.121.203 03:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Jason Stewart, username Macropneuma, good to see you're still trawling through the nearly 20,000 identifications that I've made on iNaturalist in order to find the few mistakes I've made. Cheers —  Junglenut | talk  04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No. And no. Steve Fitzgerald don't flatter yourself any more. LOL. Each day, just checking in iNat the general Qld wet tropics region plants and 'un-identifieds', for the most egregious and laugh out loud (LOLz) ridiculous incompetence, wilful ignorance–based, wrong identifications, and the most notably good sightings . The vast majority of the former are made by you, and only a tiny LOL examples' sample I've listed here.

Would you like all of your most egregious and laugh out loud ridiculous, wilful ignorance–based wrong identifications listed here and listed elsewhere.

Multiple people i know refuse to use iNat because of the unscientific nonsense by several users of it, one region the worst: the wet tropics, and one of the worst wilful ignorance–based nonsense of the wet tropics in iNat: you !

The social media bottom dwellers who contaminate citizen science with an ugly bad reputation .

And don't forget this topic, Piper caninum provides the current correct name (not Piper lanatum). https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/search/names?product=APNI&name=Piper&inc.scientific=on&max=100&display=apni&search=true .

As commonly so, the foreign <–> ethnocentric colonialists' has beens –superficial tourists of life itself– have got the facts of life wrong again.

BrisVegas:- --120.22.177.121 23:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Steve Fitzgerald. When will you cease and desist from vainly having tried to take credit for people's work which you do not have competence doing and which never originates from your work.

And when will you cease and desist from vainly trying to gaslight the people and usurp the credit of people, who's work you have already vainly tried to take credit for, including identifications of plants – animals – fungi, people's wikipedia edits and people's photographs and what else ??? https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-projection-defense-mechanism-5194898 .

BrisVegas:- --120.22.29.36 23:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Steve Fitzgerald : Clicking again and again on the social media click-bait agree buttons (several thousand times) ≠ written–reasoned identifications of plants–animals–fungi according with scholarly taxonomic primary knowledge(s) sources .

Steve Fitzgerald: You regurgitate peoples original knowledge which does not have any credit to you . And you regurgitate other people's in turn also regurgitated by them, second hand without credit, stuff, from originating people, which also does not have credit to you .

Your wilfully ignorant asininity echo–chamber .

Credentials do not matter much (snapshot in time only mostly cramming for exams and assignments results by not the most intelligent people at all) .

Practical competencies do have real importance and status, especially in practical in the field professional work .

Practical skills do have real importance and status, especially in practical in the field professional work .

Regularly and repeatedly making wilful ignorance-based errors, including the same errors over and over again stubbornly willfully refusing learning, shows willful, incompetence, un-scientific methods, gaming of policies presuming good faith and skill-less-ness (not good faith innocent (non–wilful) ignorance) .

Making tiny minority of human errors based on tiredness or misdirection by others, while still knowledge–based (not wilful ignorance-based) remains evidence of competencies in the well known cliche, still accurate here of : these tiny minority of errors provide the exception which proves the rule (here of comptencies) . As AM, RJ, DM, JK, GH, AB, SW, FZ, DT, KL, BP, i and NN and so on, occasionally (rarely) do and then correct ourselves at the earliest available time .

Wikipedia has always been demagoguery 'pornographication' of knowledge ! Yes sell it off it's so intellectually and morally ugly bankrupt !

Wikipedia has its own internal policy that wikipedia must not use wikipedia a source to reference in its own wikipedia articles. Which says the admission of wikipedia has no knowledge credibility .

But Kew herbarium incl. POWO<>WCVP goes to the opposite extreme hypocrisy of unscientific sources referencing practises of zero original knowledge, including circularly referencing itself as a source for itself, regularly in many POWO taxon pages . They have no shame, no such qualms, no lack of hypocrisy, no lack of colonialist over-reach, and much less credibility than they imply with their shiny surfaces, such as websites and incompetently sourced databases which aspire to competent sourcing of knowledge, but fall far short of globally achieving it in their over–reach, outside of their own place and region, the British Isles .

Anyways who cares ! No genuinely moral and intelligent many people i'm friends with .

BrisVegas:- --120.22.141.139 01:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)