User talk:Mailseth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NowCommons: Image:NeedlesCusterStatePark.jpg[edit]

Image:NeedlesCusterStatePark.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:The Needles in Custer State Park, South Dakota.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:The Needles in Custer State Park, South Dakota.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:NLCD canopy MSN area.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NLCD canopy MSN area.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:NLCD impervious MSN area.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NLCD impervious MSN area.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Request of copy edit assistance[edit]

Hi Mailseth - I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look at another page I have prepared and recently submitted for review - Long-toed Salamander. If you have the time!! Thanks! Thompsma (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for a better image[edit]

or at least one that is appropriately labelled for this page's content...erm...I have a problem with this image as it is showing land USE (e.g. urban is a use not a cover, and in the context of land cover and land use 'fields' is meaningless - this is a landscape descriptor). Could I suggest that a more appropriate image is substituted? 82.31.52.30 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? Seeing as the NLCD stands for National Land Cover Dataset, I would think that the image should fit well. I believe 'urban' land cover is similar to 'impervious surface' land cover. What other land cover would you call cement and asphalt? Mailseth (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important that a page on land cover is very clear and consistent about the differences with the concept of land use. Unfortunately NLCD uses the two terms interchangeable as do many other datasets. So in answer to your question, and to be consistent and to be technically correct I would call them 'cement' and 'asphalt' or 'artificial surfaces'. NLCD may be a 'land cover' data set but it has many 'land use' categories. My comment was that a better example area from NLCD could have been chosen - perhaps an area with more obvious cover related NLCD classes such as 41:Deciduous Forest 42:Evergreen Forest 43:Mixed Forest 51:Dwarf Scrub 52:Shrub/Scrub 71:Grassland/Herbaceous 72:Sedge/Herbaceous 73:Lichens 74:Moss 90:Woody Wetlands 91:Palustrine Forested Wetland 92:Palustrine Scrub / Shrub Wetland

But not the more use-related ones such as 82:Cultivated Crops 81:Pasture/Hay 61:Orchards/Vineyards/Other 85:Urban/Recreational Grasses

There is a general confusion of land cover (surface) and land use (activities). This is in part historical but also political - Anderson et al developed a land classification that confused cover and use but one that many agencies could buy into. It was a classic fudge. Unfortunately classification by committee perpetuates this confusion in many cases. For example what kinds of features are included in 'urban'? Urban is a use. It would be more correct to say 'concrete' 'slate' etc. People's gardens are included - so urban is a use.

Why is this important? Because many models (eg for climate change) take land cover as an input. What they get is some land use. Always. This is problematic for the reliability of the models. If you want chapter and verse on this I recently edited a special issue of the Journal of Land Use Science on just this topic and can point to a couple of publications that may shed some light on the importance of this matter: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=g905947219~db=all. Let me know if you want copies of the papers (ajc36@le.ac.uk). Lexcomber (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, I think that you would be better qualified than me to update the Land Cover page. I would suggest adding some of what you've written above to the page; it's very sparse at the moment. If you do a Google search for "Land Cover", Wikipedia is number four and the first three are much too technical for someone looking for an intro on the subject. I can help you format and wikify it. If you suggest an area which would be a better example image, I'll crop it out and post it.

I originally only posted the NLCD image under the Landscape Ecology page to give it some spice. I choose that area because it contains UW-Madison, where I was introduced to the subject. Mailseth (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Long-toed salamander assistance[edit]

Greetings Mailseth! Thanks for the repairs to the long-toed article. Quickly wrote up the description paragraph last night - your grammatical fixes improved it greatly. I think I need to rework parts of the article to make it flow together as a whole - bits and pieces were cobbled together, so I have to now shuffle things about. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind pointing out what words or sections seem a little too technical for wiki. This was one of the reviewers comments and being immersed in the field I have a hard time knowing what is too technical. It all reads the same to me.Thompsma (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally go by this standard: If I'm reading something, and I realize that my eyes are moving but I'm no longer understanding, then what I'm "reading" should be phrased better. Rarely is something incomprehensible simply because that's the reality of it. It happens a lot when reading journals especially. It's like there's a conspiracy to waste my time. (I'm perfectly capable of that on my own.) On wikipedia I can do something about it.

  • The taxonomy and evolution section is difficult to read. Part of me says that there are too many links in it, but another part says that that's all of the words that your average person would wish to be defined. So perhaps what is missing is the space between the technical/linked words. So you could use simpler, 'filler', text there or break it into paragraphs (or both).
  • The description section doesn't leave me with a visualization of what it actually looks like. There may not be a good way to describe it, which is probably why field guides normally have color drawings/photos.
  • Put an appropriate image in the description section.
  • Break up the description section into further sections/paragraphs. or:
  • It also seemed like much of the description info would be better placed as paragraphs in appropriate later sections. (Egg desc in Eggs section; Larvae desc in Larvae section; etc)
  • I think the "Life cycle" and "Ecology, behaviour and life history" sections are good, however I think the section titles could be more clear as to what each section is; and why they aren't the same thing.
  • The subspecies section is good, but I wonder if the "Phenotypes" and "Biogeography and genetics" lists would be better combined, or at least listed in the same order to help someone compare the two lists.
  • Something else: I suspect that there is a good reason that you've studied this salamander and put such work into it's article page. What is it? You might want to add that (new section?) towards the beginning so people care enough to read the rest of the article. Currently there isn't anything significant distinguishing it from just about every other salamander in existence. Mailseth (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:BlackhillsCusterStateParkBurros.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)