User talk:Pollinator
Hello. Wikipedia articles should not begin with dictionary-style definitions, but with complete sentences. Accordingly, I have redirected your "pollinizer" article. Michael Hardy 23:09, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi Pollinator, cool image there on compound eye! Could you please make a note where this is from and its legal status (like "I took this", "public domain" or something) here? Thanks, Magnus Manske 11:30, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes I took it, and all other photos I've posted here. Pollinator 11:56, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hello Pollinator, please to meet you :)
I left you a note at Talk:Pollinator decline. Thank you. Anthère
Hello Pollinator;
Would it be possible that you participate in helping me to translate the article I partly wrote about ecology ? There is currently a paragraph I think is correct in the page (hidden). I am asking because I want this article to be "proper english". Do not feel like you should do, it is perfectly ok to me if you do not want or do not have the time. In case you could, I would be very pleased.
Have a good day in any case :-)
I'll be glad to give it a try....Pollinator 21:03, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
great :-). Well Brian nicely took care of this paragraph (it may need some terminology fix, but I do not feel the courage this evening and will be away this week end, perhaps can you check ?). I am working on the next paragraphs :-), perhaps for next week. I am sure you could improve the whole stuff anyway. Thanks :-) ant
Hello Pollinator. If you feel like bringing any kind of help to ecology (see hidden in edit mode), you will be more than welcome.
Have a good day :-) ant
Hello again
are you still around ?
If so, could you restore your edit at gaucho (insecticide) ?
The content of the article when deleted is at User:Anthere/temp. Please, pick the content back and just put it again in the article.
Thanks
ant
here is the explanation of my doing so, as I left on Dr Clay... (who moved the content of the page) user page to explain why I deleted the page
from user page
I deleted the article Gaucho (pesticide) to restore the authorship of the article, per gfdl license.
why did I do so you would ask ?
I did not care much about authors, until, about a week ago, I was told I had illegally recreated an article, without mentionning the name of the original author while I did. I was told I was infringing the license, which required to trace the authors of an article. Actually, this point is still being discussed on the legal mailing list; but fact is, I am very insistent on fairness, and if some say I am doing illegal action in not respecting other people authorship, I will insist that my authorship is respected as well :-)
One thing that is recommended in case a whole portion of an article is moved to another, is either to mention the main authors of that portion in the comment box, or more easily, to mention the name of the original article from which the text was moved.
end of comment to another user
Cheers Pollinator :-)
No, it did not mess anyone else edit. I was watching (quite worried, I am glad you came back quickly). No one did any other edit than restoring the link to the other Gaucho :-) ant
Thanks for telling me. I've reverted it now, but it would have been fine for you to have reverted it yourself. If you see a user is continuing to vandalise a page, you can list them on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress so a sysop can consider banning them. By the way, Special:Emailuser/Pollinator seems to have your wrong address in. Angela. 01:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry, I don't have time to look at it right now, but if it meets the guidelines at [1], then list it the bottom of [2] and maybe someone else will have a look and add it. There aren't too many guidelines for recent deaths, other than the article must include this fact, and be listed on Recent deaths. By the way, replying to the e-mail you sent via the "email this user" form still doesn't work. It might be best if you left messages on my talk page, rather than e-mail. I tend to check that more often anyway. Angela. 06:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hello Pollinator :-)
Basically the translation of ecology is over. If you bring corrections, be they of content, style, typos, whatever, you will be welcome. I will fix missing or bad links, and replace the top with bee references (much better), and that will be it. I also put the ecology article on the main page (and it seems no one objects). Cheers. Ant
I am sorry you did started the translation, as it was done by another as well :-(
Do you like that ? http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology#Usage_of_the_term
- Yes, of course. I was pleasantly surprised. Pollinator 00:31, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think that is a great example :-))))
Beekeeping
I was just checking you were paying attention. ;) Sorry about that, I'm going through a list of 500 articles on Simple that need to be linked and beekeeping was the one right after beard, so I must have copied and pasted and the wrong thing. I should probably get a bot to do it, but I don't really like them. Thanks for spotting the mistake. I've fixed it now. Angela. 19:38, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hello Dave. I hope you had nice holidays, and wish you a happy new year (in France, it is the habit to do so till the 31rst of january, so I am actually not late :-)) ant
Hi. I really like the following picture: image:Anolemeal6127.JPG. Did you take it? Have you got a larger/higher resolution version? --snoyes 07:19, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes I do. Pollinator 07:25, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hehe, that was a bit of a request ;-) What do you think about uploading a larger/higher resolution version of all your images (User:Pollinator/Images)? There are some really nice images there, and I'd love to see wikipedia have them in more detail. If you want, you could send them to me and I'll do all the resizing, etc. --snoyes 07:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hehe, I suspected as much. I guess I may as well come clean. I make a part of my living with my photos. So I'm not comfortable with giving away large images. I gotta buy groceries sometimes. I've been giving 300 pixel images here, but that's too small to be of much commercial value. If someone wants them for educational non-profit use, I'm usually pretty free with them, but they could theoretically be taken from here for commercial use. I might occasionally upload a larger one. The cumulonimbus cloud pic I put up today loses a lot at 300 px. and I was thinking of a larger one there. OK? Pollinator 07:50, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I should have thought of that, considering the quality of the images (Image:Dragonfly eye 3811.jpg). Thanks for adding all the pictures you have. --snoyes 08:05, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Done - no hassle. --snoyes 06:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ailanthus webworm
replies on the Talk:Ailanthus webworm page seglea 07:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Could you clarify the copyright status of images
Hi Pollinator,
Could you please clarify the copyright status of Image:Misumena_vatia_8430.JPG? i.e. whether you took it, or got permission to redistribute here under the GFDL. It would be best if you could put the source on this page as soon immediately after you upload it? It saves questions like this later. Cheers. --Lexor 05:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- All images I upload, unless otherwise noted, are mine, as noted above. Pollinator 05:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- that is what comes from being able to take pictures which are too pretty ;-). Cheers Pollinator. Ant
- That's great that they're your own, but please put that information in the summary line when you everytime you upload it, to save the double-check. It's not enough to put it on your talk page, it should be on the page dedicated to that picture, otherwise it's too easy for the information to be lost. All you need to say is something like: Image of Miseumena vatia (taken by Pollinator released under GFDL. Having in the same place as the image metadata is like making sure that each file in a computer program has the copyright notice, if you just have it at in one file in the program, it's too easy for the copyright status to get confused. Witness the SCO v. IBM case. ;-) Ideally the wikipedia software would have a checkbox that you could just check for "image taken by me, released under GFDL", or taken from http://blahblah with permission. --Lexor 13:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I can't believe that someone who can figure out how to use a computer is trying to argue for Creationism. Luckily, most of the fools who are dumb enough to swallow the idea that scientists are trying to foist their "viewpoint" on people against their "viewpoint" that "Satan planted fossils to trick us", that the earth was created in 4004 BC and other nonsense, are too dumb to figure out how to use a computer as well, and are unable to memetically spread their fanatical commitment to ignorance. It's unfortunate you are around in the 21st century, I think you would have been happier several centuries back when Galileo Galilei was persecuted as a heretic for saying the earth revolved around the sun, that Jupiter had moons and so forth, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for the same reason. I think we of the 21st century would be happier to have you back there in your natural milieu. It's amazing how creationists can have the cognitive dissonance to argue that human life can only be created through direct divine intervention on the one hand, and on the other hand have laws passed in the US against human cloning of humans. Please stick to rants on abortion and Jesus, and stop bothering the rest of the world with your inability to grasp reality. -- JohnWoolsey 04:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Aren't you making a lot of assumptions (since I haven't identified my own position)? Anyway, I thank you for your viewpoint. You've made a strong point in the Creationists' favor - that Darwinism can be an intolerant religion.Pollinator 03:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I deleted Lowergenesee2.jpg. - snoyes 14:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like the picture of the cypress knees! - Marshman 02:19, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you! Pollinator 03:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi Pollinator... You mention on your user page that you are a Wesleyan. I have recently put up a page on Methodist local preachers (I'm one myself), but it is written very much from a UK perspective. I know that at one time the term was used in American Methodism but I don't see much current sign that they still do, either from the UMC websites or from living in Berkeley CA this year and talking to people at the church we attend. If you're able to fill in anything about American practice past or present, it would help the article - thanks. seglea 09:47, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Morning, Dave - I could well have disambiguated Andre Michaux incorrectly. I'm not particularly familiar with his work or visits. Would the correct link be the Americas or just North America? Thanks for your comment and you're right, I do get a bit zealous here. I've learned to trust, though, that someone will correct my disambiguation when I guess wrong. It's worked so far anyway. Rossami 13:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)