User talk:Phyzome

I'm not very active on this site anymore. The best way to contact me is by email or through my website.

I have many images available under a free license on my personal gallery site, and images marked as such may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under the license stated on the image's page.

Archives

• Before 2009-02-25

---

File tagging File:Casadamusica.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Casadamusica.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Casadamusica.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

• File:Casadamusica.jpg
• File:Sidis, Boris, Harvard College Collection -2.jpeg
• File:Sidis, Boris, Harvard College Collection -1.jpeg
• File:Roose2.jpg

BotMultichillT 21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Musa textilis - Manila Hemp - desc-flower.jpg

Hi Tim/Phyzome

Following our discussion by email, I can confirm that this picture (File:Musa textilis - Manila Hemp - desc-flower.jpg) doesn't represent Musa textilis, but Musa balbisiana. It is a labeling mistake from the Washington Botanical Garden. Since this picture is widely used on the Internet as a reference to Musa textilis, it is misleading and embarrassing. One possibility would be to rename it to its correct botanical classification, or to simply remove it.

Best,

Christophe Jenny

Ah, that's disappointing to hear. I've gone ahead and removed the image from the w:Abacá page, and I'll ask around for the best approach for removing it from all the other locations on Wikipedia, and renaming the image. (Also, I should probably go through other images I had uploaded with species identifications based on plant labels...) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 13:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and marked it as misidentified, and started a discussion page; I'll ask for advice at the Commons:Help desk and point people there. (We can continue discussion there as well.) -- Phyzome (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you removing the image from English Wikipedia. I've gone ahead and replaced it with a botanical illustration (AmCyc Manila Hemp.jpg) across various language Wikipedias and Wiktionarys. The file still needs renaming though. Plantdrew (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! That's very helpful. I'll go ahead with the renaming. -- Phyzome (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Christophe Jenny: I think my solution is more informative. (I admit it's not ideal for people who don't understand English, but what are you gonna do..) - Alexis Jazz 01:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Heh, interesting approach. I'm going to restore my text as well, though, so that people who don't speak English can run it through a translator. -- Phyzome (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Err, never mind, it's there but I didn't see it! -- Phyzome (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Cadaver dissection table - long shot.jpg

Hello!. I don't agree with your reversion of my edition. The cotrect category of your file is ONLY Category:Dissection tables, you should avoid (as you have done) the overcategorization. If all the files that were related to pathology should be within a Category:Pathology, this category would have thousands of files, and that would not be useful in the search. Also look at bottom message (in Category:Pathology): This is a main category requiring frequent diffusion and maybe maintenance. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into appropriate subcategories). Also it is also clear that: if it is a dissection table, it is used to make autopsy -> it is not necessary categorize within Category:Human autopsies. Almost all dissection tables are used to make human autopsies, otherwise a specific subcategory should be created Autopsy tables for animal dissection and Autopsy tables for human dissection; but as you can see, the dissection tables shown are for human autopsies, then it is not necessary. Jmarchn (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, my apologies. I was too hasty, and assumed that content removal with an empty edit message was a test edit, which I see quite a bit of. Your explanation here makes sense, so I'll self-revert. -- Phyzome (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)