The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 127(point)0(point)0(point)1! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
P.S thanks for coming back to Wikipedia after a decade :)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
Hello! 127(point)0(point)0(point)1,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! LizRead!Talk!02:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs
Hello, 127(point)0(point)0(point)1,
I noticed that despite being a new editor (with this account), you have jumped into participating in AFD discussions which typically require a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia policies & guidelines and the differing standards of notability that exist for different subjects. I just wanted to encourage you to examine articles being discussed, look closely at their sourcing, consider doing your own search for additional referencing that might exist and help preserve an article being discussed, and thoroughly review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions so you can avoid commonly made mistakes in deletion discussions. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!04:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its where I used to hang out, and when I first came back there was a big commotion about VfD simply not having the editors to function (this was a big point in the Conduct in Deletion Discussions ArbCom case and the subsequent Article Creation at Scale RFC) so it seemed like it's where you needed editors the most. Let me know if you have further advice, because it's where you'll be seeing me a fair bit :) Thank you! -WhoIs 127.0.0.1ping/loopback07:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there 331dot, I don't believe it runs afoul of anything, the (point)s are intended to make it clear it's not, and even used in my sig with periods the Whois/ping/loopback window dressing does the same job. That said if you feel it's over the line I understand if you feel the need to take it to UAA. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1ping/loopback15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you keeping me informed. Let me know if there's a consensus against the name at the RFC, I'm not going to make a big stink out of it if the community decides it's not OK, but by the same token my participating in the RfC makes it seem adversarial and my comment is already known :) --WhoIs 127.0.0.1ping/loopback15:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, so far the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#127(point)0(point)0(point)1 is leaning towards saying your username being OK. Personally, I think your username isn't great - but that's only because it is long and repetitive - but not that it should be repetitive. That discussion has forked (it's not really the right venue ) that your signature is problematic - are you open to suggestions? — xaosfluxTalk16:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, the mobile editor moved this from being a direct reply. Reposting as a direct comment- Hey there Xaos. I'm open to suggestions if there's a consensus it's disruptive or hits an issue with policy. Is there anything you have in mind? WhoIs 127.0.0.1ping/loopback16:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good. I'm on my phone on the train so it's not something I'm going to do right at this moment, but when I come back on tonight from an actual computer I'll make the sign change. Thanks for the suggestion! -WhoIs 127.0.0.1ping/loopback16:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIG for the guidance. The general issue is that someone who doesn't know better may think your signature is from an actual IP address as it is - most editors don't know what a loopback address is. — xaosfluxTalk16:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note on my talk page. You are indeed correct, but the source of the ALA file was not correctly attributed in Commons. The source is not https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/2513241100, but as you say, the source should have been https://images.ala.org.au/image/details?imageId=6c94549c-e576-4e74-8b43-9131e9f33f6d. I will upload a fresh, larger version of Chris Jonkers' image. Leave me a note if you would like some tips on uploading images from the ALA. In the meantime, a couple of extra things. 1. There is no need to add a species name after "|name" in a species box - it is added automatically. If it is added, it must be in italics (eg. Leptospermum blakelyi) 2. I think it is better to add an image of a plant, rather than of an herbarium specimen (as at Leptospermum benwellii). The image of L. blakelyi that you found is an excellent one, and will add much value to the page. Thanks again. Gderrin (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit! I didn't answer your question. Answer: I downloaded the image onto my desktop, then dragged the downloaded image into "Drop files here" on the Commons upload page. Then added all the relevant data, including categories and GPS coords.Gderrin (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I said tools and parsing I meant more conceptually then literally, I was talking about parsing the conflicting copyright signals for that specific image, specifically the collection listed as BY-NC but the image saying BY. Believe it or not I actually almost literally stumbled on to this aspect of the 'pedia. I hit the random article button and landed on the first plant of the mini-spree I went on, noticed it was lacking an image and decided to go hunting for one with an acceptable license to see if I could. Then I went to the category for that type of plant and started looking for others without images. I was looking through your contribs and did another one. I tried to look at how you were writing your captions and all that to try and improve my own. If you feel like indulging me I'd like you to take a look at the last one I did and tell me if there are things I might improve in my work? I saw you cropped one of my commons uploads to better highlight the specific plant for example. It looked like you used a tool by the edit summary, is that something I should be doing to improve the image as I upload, or should it be originals first and then crop as needed? Any pointers would be appreciated. I've never done real image work, even back in the old days so I'm fervently hoping not to get it wrong, but I'm also enjoying it. --(loopback)ping/whereis20:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any help you can give by adding images to Australian plant articles, is greatly appreciated, especially by me. I saw your add to Pimelea leiophylla - all good. (Including "File:" in the taxobox is not usually done, but I don't know what difference it makes.) It's important to always give plant binomials in italics. When adding an image to a plant article, good to check if the Talk Page has "image needed", and remove it, if it does. (There is a list of these somewhere.) Gderrin (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More excellent images. Thanks.
One small request - some older images have an irregular black border around them. Looks ugly. (Photo slide converted to .jpeg?) There's a handy tool, that can be used to crop the image, removing the border. Maybe you wouldn't mind doing some cropping? Gderrin (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Give me a couple hours to settle in to the night shift at work and I'll go through. I had some practice with the crop tool last night using it on an image with a huge black bar on the right side, so I feel confident I can handle the tool. Thank you! --(loopback)ping/whereis06:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more point if I could ask your advice. A number of these articles don't have the needs-image or needs-photo parameter on the talk page. I have been leaving those untouched after adding an image, is it best practices to ADD the parameter and set it to no? Or is leaving the talkpage as is preferred? --(loopback)ping/whereis11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed. If anything it's an illustration of why I'm so happy to have someone watching over this. I am decidedly NOT a subject matter expert and am quite grateful for you. --(loopback)ping/whereis05:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
