Hi! What changes were made this burrowing owl image? It would be nice to know as per Editing candidates. Many thanks.--YanA 07:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded at FPC nomination and on Image page. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I think your image is superior to mine for a lot of reasons, it is specious to say that it is higher resolution; if it were cropped to leave the same margins around the flower, it would be lower resolution. There's nothing wrong with saying "replaced with better image".--Curtis Clark 05:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I will try to be more careful with my edit summaries henceforth Thank you for taking the time to comment. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wsiegmund/Archive10,

I've brought up a policy issue for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way of transferring the pictures I've uploaded in (English) Wikipedia over to WikiCommons, or do I need to upload the same files over in WikiCommons, too? I've been dragging my feet about that, as I have a lot of files to transfer.--Mr Fink 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits...I have done about all I can to the sections leading up to the firestorm section, which I have a lot to add to yet...the other sections below that are still just in the preliminary stages as of now.--MONGO 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Although Media controveries is pretty much completed too...I think I need some different headings on the sections to take the "story telling" aspect out of the article...what do you think?--MONGO 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wsiegmund/Archive10,

I've brought up two policy issues for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Walter,

Thanks for your edits of the draft categorisation of guidelines. I added LepIndex & Marrku Savela's Finnish site to it also.

I tried out the ITIS for a species 'charitonius'/'charithonia' belonging to Zebra Longwing Heliconius charithonia, an American species of butterfly, but it gave a 'no records found' message. Possibly its not ready for Lepidoptera as yet. A million scientific names listed in their database may be large, but far too small for complete TOL, we would probably get decent coverage once it hits 5 million and above.

Do continue your interaction with the WikiProject - we are a very small WikiProject and every member's input is precious to us. We shall be discussing a large number of issue over the next few months. Exciting times ahead! Regards, AshLin 04:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi AshLin; Thanks for adding the better references. I tried Polygonia gracilis with ITIS successfully. A major limitation of ITIS is its current North American emphasis. I'm not very knowledgeable about Lepidoptera, but would like to know more. I'm keen to continue taking and contributing images and thank you for your kind words. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that Walter, we have no one really focussing on American butterflies as yet. There are a few well developed articles, lots of stubs and far too many red links. We dont have a list of butterflies of USA either, only for Oklahoma and Texas! Considering wikipedia is an American gift to the world and that there are more American wikipedians than others this state is pathetic. Hope your efforts will help us correct this imbalance. Regards, AshLin 09:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping [1]...I have done about all I can do until I take it to FAC...so your contributions are most appreciated. If there are objections at FAC, I'll be working on the article again then to address them.--MONGO 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you thought my contributions helpful. I'm impressed with Frutti di Mare's and your contributions. Very good work, it is. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally agree with the date not being in the botanical taxobox. In fact it was the first thing that struck me in the very first taxobox I looked at. There is an out: you can put it in the classification section. Then you probaby have to find out what all those botancal publication abbreviations mean, a task of some magnitude. Once you do find out you are likely to find out no one else knew either and transcribed the title wrongly. We're back to the manuscript copying errors of the pre-printed book eras. This is beginning to look like the work of the botanical job protection society; still, before systematization, it was virtually impossible to verify any classification unless you read it in Linnaeus. Until the Internet Linnaeus was not even accessible. Now at least there is whole electronic hierarchy about who's name gets used and where it is published. What is really annoying if you are inclined to get burned up is that you almost never can have access to the work cited. You would have to go into a rare book room and apply for a supervised session for a 15-minute look at the book. No wonder no one ever knows what the abbreviations mean but just copy them with errors.Dave 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. I'm not a biologist, so this is all news to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Seattle, Washington has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LaraLove 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed this as spam. Please explain.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 06:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL advises not linking to sites "with objectionable amounts of advertising". That is my basis for removing it, but it is certainly a matter of judgement. The main page of McAlester, OK - Photos contains three commerical links (two duplicated), no informational content and a seach field that leads to image postage stamps, some text content, and more advertising links. If you disagree, please restore it. Be sure that you do not violate WP:COI by doing so, however.

I don't think I'm extreme in my interpretation of WP:EL. Other editors may remove the link in the future. If the main page of mcalesterphotos.com were to include some text describing the categories of photo subjects available on the site, its range of dates, a section of a few of the photos, etc., it would be less likely to be removed, in my opinion. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Above discussion copied to Talk:McAlester, Oklahoma. Please continue the discussion there. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Saw you took out Sierra Nevada; I was wondering whether this should go in or not, in the end I put it in as it isn't included in the list of component ranges at Pacific Coast Ranges (and the grouse does occur there). There's a zoogeographical (and phytogeographical) argument for including the Sierra Nevada in the Pacific Coast Ranges, but as far as I'm aware, it isn't usually treated as such. Any thoughts? - MPF 17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now. Thank you for commenting. I reverted my edit to the grouse article; the constituents of Pacific Coast Ranges are somewhat disputed. I edited Pacific Coast Ranges to explicitly indicate that theSierra Nevada are often, but not always, included. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)