Welcome!

Hello, Jstuby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for creating the article on Glacial boundary. Please be aware that it is not acceptable to sign articles, they are supposed to not be your original research (see WP:OR) not owned by any contributor. (Though some of us note on our user pages the articles that we have created.) I'm removing your signature from the article. GRBerry 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bedford County PA Geologic Map 2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Bedford_County_PA_Geologic_Map_2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Catskill-slab.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. We need some kind of copyright tag for this image. Public domain, creative commons, etc works. Without one of these, the image will be deleted. Let me know. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bear Meadows Natural Area, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.greenworks.tv/radio/earthtones/bearmeadows.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Keystone (limestone) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Non-dropframe (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Memorial-keystone-1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Memorial-keystone-2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Tom, Dick and Harry Mountain, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — ERcheck (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Baldeagle3.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Lehighgap1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lehighgap1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great picture for Big Park/VOC! Is the little white bit on the bottom left a reflection? At first I thought it was perhaps a Doppler radar installation, but I quickly realised otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great addition! I have a relative who lives there and it's interesting to see it from another perspective. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Steep Canyon Rangers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Otisjimmy1 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated DelFest, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DelFest. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Clastic dike UT.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Clastic dike UT.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: [[File:Clastic dike UT.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dike diabase AZ.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Dike diabase AZ.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you know, I removed the picture of Pterygotus buffaloensis and Eurypterus you posted in Pterygotus, as Pterygotus buffaloensis has been moved to the genus Acutiramus--Mr Fink (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know anything about botany, paleo or otherwise. :( Abyssal (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Jim, just to let you know I have removed you image of petrified wood from the Callitropsis article pending discussion on the identification of the specimen. Do you have any locality information for the specimen and who gave the Callitropsis ID? --Kevmin § 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only info I have is what was on the wall at the State Museum of Pennsylvania. It's 18 million years old, and from Gadsden County, Florida. I'm just guessing that it's Callitropsis.

Out of curiosity why Callitropsis, which is known only from the Pacific Northwest and Vietnam, rather then Taxodium, known from across the southeast and a significant fossil range?--Kevmin § 03:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously you know more about this than me. I just thought it was a useful picture to demonstrate that cypress has a fossil record. Since the specific taxon is not known, I suggest moving it to a wiki page at the family level or something rather than guessing what genus it belongs to. Alternately you could contact the museum for more detailed provenance information. Thanks for your attention to this. Jim Stuby (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved your pic File:Olearyandesite.jpg from porphyry (geology) to the newly-created page for porphyritic. I hope this is OK, let me know if you have questions/concerns. Qfl247 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truthfully I don't see the point to having separate pages - the new one is just an adjective version of the noun. I'd combine them. Jim Stuby (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Talk:Porphyry (geology), I suggested the split, cheifly because of the mineral deposit difference, and no one said no... I would say that a porphyry copper deposit is different enough, and many geologists use the term "porphyry" exclusively associated with the deposit, so a page explaining the adjective is useful, especially to someone trying to learn about the textural term (I.e. begining geologists/students). Qfl247 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Landsat LE7013043000008650 small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eeekster (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Landsat LT40130431987338XXX02 small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Turbidites KY.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your bot, if that is why the image is tagged by you, is not working correctly. If you had bothered to read the copyright info, you'd see I took the picture myself and released it into the public domain. The copyright status is clear. What exactly is the problem? Jim Stuby (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jstuby, thanks for your image of the Cerion at Windley Key. Cerion to me is a hopelessly confusing genus. There are over 6 Florida species (many more names than that exist though and experts are still working out what is what). I know very little about how to discriminate the species, and have never had to chance to examine a lot of material. Knowing that the shells of these are smooth is a help, but may not be enough to determine which species it is. I don't think anyone has mapped which species live on each of the Keys so we can't go with that as a clue. Anyway the image is nice to have, thanks, and maybe I can eventually find someone who knows what species it is. Invertzoo (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very, very much for that astounding image of P. gigantea feeding on E. gigas. That was an awesome addition to the article! I also used it in the Pleuroploca gigantea article. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Jstuby, that is really a great picture to have, very valuable biologically! Thank you so much for taking it and giving it to Commons. Invertzoo (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw a lot of amazing stuff at Dry Tortugas. See the article on Caribbean Reef Squid - the photo of the school of squid is from the same trip. I have some youtube videos from the dive as well, with more on the way.

You are very fortunate indeed. I would be very happy to go there. I am studying the Caribbean fauna, but further south, in the Leeward Island chain of the Lesser Antilles. Invertzoo (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Davis Reef. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just created the article minutes ago, and there is nothing controversial about it. I'm creating a series of stubs on the reefs of the Florida Keys, with more details to follow. Jim Stuby (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for trying to add a photo to Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, unfortuantely File:Lock Haven airphoto Aug2010.jpg is not a valid link to an image here or on Commons. I searched some here and on Commons and did not see any aerial images of Lock Haven, so I undid your edit for now. Could you please check the link / upload the photo? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try giving me a few minutes next time. Jim Stuby (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the image. Next time, you could try uploading first, then adding the link to the article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jstuby. With respect, I'm one of the main contributors to the Lock Haven article, and Ruhrfisch is the other. We worked hard over a period of years to improve the article to FA status. If the article were re-submitted now to FAC with the aerial image as is, it would be rejected until we either moved or removed the image. The reason is that the additional image overloads the section it's been placed in and creates a text sandwich between two images; the Manual of Style advises against overloading and text sandwiches. The aerial image is also of a lower resolution than the others in the article, and it repeats information mostly contained in the bird's-eye view of the 1911 postcard. For these reasons, I'd like to remove the image, but I don't want to abruptly do that without discussing it with you first and explaining my reasoning. I notice that the aerial image has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia but not to the Commons. I'd be happy to upload it to the Commons, if you like. There it would be available to other projects as well as the English Wikipedia, and it would be included in the gallery of images that readers see when they click on the Commons link in the "External links" section of the Lock Haven article. You can reply here or on my talk page. Thanks for your consideration and understanding. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is fine if you want to upload it to the commons. I don't know how to do it and rely on others to move my images there, if they think it is worth it. I don't mind if you remove it from the Lock Haven article for the reasons above. I'll probably add it to the article on Bald Eagle Mountain. Jim Stuby (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again - I added it to Great Island Path as it shows the Great Island very nicely. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks from me, too. I moved the image to the Commons with all of the description, date, and author information intact, and made sure the image shows up in the Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, category at the Commons. I retained the original file name you assigned to the image. Finetooth (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what reef it was taken on off-hand, but I can try and check later on. I am, however, fairly certain it was off of Black Point in Miami, Florida. I'll check, but I don't think I can get any more specific than that. Let me know if you have any other questions. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Juniata River meander.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you have been editing articles about reefs in the FKNMS. If you haven't done so, could you take a look at Florida Reef. I recently created that article, and I suspect it could benefit from attention from a professional geologist. -- Donald Albury 11:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be happy to.Jstuby (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reviewed it. I didn't see any geologic problems with it but made a few minor edits. Perhaps most significantly I added Hen and Chickens (reef) as an example of a Dome patch reef. There may be better ones, but I've been to H&C twice. Also, I realize you got your info from another source, which is what you are supposed to do, but almost any of the fish mentioned in the article can be found at any type of reef. One suggestion, if you want to develop the geology more, would be to state that the uppper Keys themselves are a Pleistocene reef that developed during the last sea-level highstand in the Wisconsinan-Illinoisan interglacial period, when sea level was several meters higher than it is now. The lower keys are a former ooid shoal, now lithified, similar to modern Joulter Cays in the Bahamas. I might be able to find a reference for this if you want. Nice article.Jstuby (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be the norm in WP articles about various habitats to list the species found in them. That the Florida Keys are an ancient reef is covered in the geology section of that article (I added much of that info myself after being challenged about Key Biscayne being a barrier island and not a "true" Florida Key). From what I've read, the lower Keys have the same Miami oolite (or Miami limestone) found in Miami-Dade County (what we called 'coral rock' when I was a kid). Maybe a short statement linking to that geology section would be appropriate. -- Donald Albury 20:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the ((Autopatrolled)) top icon and/or the ((User wikipedia/autopatrolled)) userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jstuby! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Thank you for uploading free images/media such as File:Huron Harbor Light OH.jpg to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [1]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Multichill (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grahams_Harbour_1.JPG). I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

http://www.freeenglishsite.com/

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/index.htm

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/usa/index.htm

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/lessons/index.htm Slang Dictionary link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/slang/Eslang_a.htm

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely,  Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: duanerhurst@freeenglishsite.com --65.130.202.239 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jstuby. When I look at this image you posted from the Kansas Survey (top), I'm not so sure it is Syringopora. It doesn't seem to have the separate corallites I would expect, it appears to have skeletal tissue between the corallites, and it can't show the horizontal connecting tubes. Syringopora looks like to me like the image on the bottom.

I know that's what they called it in Kansas. What do you think? I could easily be wrong.

Best Wishes, Wilson44691 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm assuming KGS is probably correct about classification of fossils found in their state, and I'm not enough of a palaeontologist to argue with them. But you probably are - I encourage you email them to check. I was just motivated to get the images over to wikipedia since there were none for those genera, and they dont have much copyright protection on them.Jstuby (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I just sent KGS a message asking them to recheck that identification. If I find a good Syringopora in my collections, I can always photograph it and ask if you'd consider a substitution. Cheers, Wilson44691 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked my specimen used for the bottom photograph to the left and it is Syringopora. Maybe you could use it as a substitute for the problematic KGS photo? Best, Wilson44691 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Magnetic Map of Maryland Plate .jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The best thing about WP is when true experts like yourself create & improve articles....measures of accuracy and completeness rise exponentially, to say the least! (Perhaps you can tell I took a glance at your credentials on your User page and work on this page!) I'm a geographer, and neither a geologist nor particularly elegant at WP editing.

You (+ other like-minded geologists?) should definitely do an article on this serpentine area using everything that you've already done, or, perhaps better (does it already exist?), a WP page on the entire Nottingham, PA to Pilot, MD to here to SOldiers Delight, MD band of serpentine at the surface with its unique flora and fascinating history (and active management by biologists, at least at Soldiers Delight and Pilot.)....I'll "stay out of it" unless you think I can help with distances or place names or matters geographic!

The Broad Creek Soapstone Quarries article was created I think by an editor determined to get all MD Nat'l Historic Trust sites into WP, and he/she seems to take a dim view of combining a NHT site with other sites. So the sites should be in separate articles, yes?.....One is a 3500 or so year-old steatite-soapstone quarry, the other a 150 or so year-old serpentine quarry. The serpentine quarry is about 2 miles further down Broad Creek than the Native American site. No relation between the two other than proximity to the creek.

With your credentials (and thus not likely to be a Native American "pot hunter"), let me know and I can get you onto the property to visit either or both of these fascinating sites....I'm a couple hours away so weekends would be best. We could use any and all help in how best to fund and protect the Civil War era site's remaining rock structures in particular....I can tell you how best to contact me outside of WP. Let me know what you think! Best wishes. DLinth (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'm interested in going there, although I'm not sure when I can schedule it. You can email me at stubotics@hotmail.com. I'm doing some research on the Baltimore Gabbro Complex, and all the belts of serpentine (ultramfics) from Soldier's Delight to Broad Creek as well as much wider areas that are just gabbro are really all part of that. It will be my next major WP page probably.

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Jstuby! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep going! Excellent work so far. Just one suggestion... Any chance of Lunar GPS for them? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would add a lot of time to the effort, and most of the articles I put the images in have coordinates already. But thanks for the compliment. This all started with me reading "To a Rocky Moon" by Donald Wilhelms which refers to a lot of craters (only a few are pictured in the book) and then searching out the lunar orbiter images for the interesting craters he talks about, and then realizing it would be fairly easy to put them on wikipedia. Now I'm hooked. Mars next! Jstuby (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well if the articles have the coordinates, OK. It was that it was useufl data for one the file get's moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For future images I will see if I can add coordinates easily. Jstuby (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JStuby, I see that you are putting a lot of effort on lunar craters articles and their respective files, however the files do not contain proper sourcing and derivative licensing, we need to know if the license does allow the images to be cropped and redistributed, because you didn't give such an information. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 14:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm investigating, but haven't found a specific image use policy on the LPI website, other than this page which encourages putting their data on wikipedia. I will contact them directly to ask. As stated in the info section on every image, all the images are works of NASA and are in the public domain in the US, so I do not ultimately see any problem. 17:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also direct your attention to this discussion page, which includes similar images fro LPI. Jstuby (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Ann Hager of LPI stated this in an email to me: "You can refer to the photo image policy on the NASA website, once the NASA website returns from the government shutdown. The original Lunar Orbiter images are in public domain and can be cropped. There are no restrictions regarding the cropping of NASA photos and the Lunar and Planetary Institute does not have any restrictions on the redistribution or cropping of the Lunar Orbiter images from our website. We do ask to be credited as the source of the NASA imagery." Jstuby (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't mind you reverting my image in the Apollo 16 article back to the map if the map were not so poorly done. It has an uneditable caption at the top, a nearly redundant label with an arrow pointing at the site that is off center, yet another caption with almost the same words at the bottom, an unreadable index map at left, and a fairly blurry image of the moon from the earth. How about I come up with a better one from the Apollo 16 mapping camera or something similar? Also, I think the Apollo 14 shot adds some value to the article, and it's the only overview of the site in the article at that scale. Why not keep both? I found it interesting that A11 to A15 sites were scoped out by Lunar Orbiter, but 16 and 17 were photographed at high-res by previous Apollo missions. What aspect of Apollo 16 did you work on? Jstuby (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Using both pictures would be OK. The Apollo 14 photo alone, while nice quality, did little to help locate the landing area except for lunaphiles or experts. The combination you included in your comments is an improvement. The average Wikipedia user (if there is such a thing) would benefit from know where the landing site is located, and seeing it in a way that could be used easily. I ran computers in the Real Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which is located directly below the Mission Operations Control Room (the room you always see on TV) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The RTCC computers were the ones that ran the missions from Houston's end. I was at JSC from Apollo 16 through the end of Skylab. Later I covered parts of the space program as a reporter/author. You can see details in the KSC and article links below. http://americanindian.net/ksc.html http://americanindian.net/articles.html

Phil Konstantin (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC) PhilReply[reply]

I see you just created South Ray (crater). Do you have any idea why it's showing up as a redlink in Apollo 16? Is this some kind of server artefact that will go away in time? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it will fix itself in time - I probably created the links to South Ray before I actually created the article. The links work whether they are red or not it seems. Jstuby (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your upload of File:Brallier Formation PA Turnpike MM138.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) 14:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've recently uploaded new versions of several images, such as Leavitt crater or Borman crater and some others where the image that is shown in the image page has the dimensions of the new file but the content of the old file. Because of this the image that is in the articles on those craters is not an accurate portrayal. How can this bug be fixed? Jstuby (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. File:Leavitt crater 5026 h1.jpg and File:Borman crater 5030 h1.jpg seem to show exactly what they're supposed to show: Rotated crater images with slightly higher resolution than what was there previously. The corresponding crater articles show the new images, too. Maybe that was a server cache issue? Otherwise please clarify how the currently shown images are inaccurate. Huon (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I see is that the two small images in the file history section of the page look like they should, but the main image at the top of the image file article has the dimensions of the latest version (for Leavitt it is 780x600) but the content of the original version (404x444) has been stretched into 780x600, so its proportions are wrong and its resolution is exaggerated and it looks fuzzy. Anyway, I just tried a null edit and refresh and it seems to have fixed it. Jstuby (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably a caching problem. Post again if it recurs. JohnCD (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jstuby -- thanks for your note on my Talk page. I'm not a very experienced Wikipedian, so my apologies if this response is in incorrect form.

The fact is that a very small town (Needmore, Pennsylvania) was featured -- in a fictional manner, agreed -- on an internationally known TV program (30 Rock). I would say that the town is far better known for this appearance than for anything else in its history. Therefore, it's worth describing.

You might not like it, and I sympathize. But to pretend that it's not significant strikes me as being contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I welcome comment from others.

By the way, I didn't write the section on 30 Rock in the Needmore entry -- I merely restored the earlier revision, which you deleted. In that earlier deletion, you said that it was "probably inappropriate". We disagree. I believe discussion of its significance should happen in the Needmore Talk page.

I'm reading WP's dispute resolution page and will propose a way to resolve this soon. Cheers, --tgeller (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O.K., after rereading both your comment and the Needmore edit, I agree that too much attention was given to the 30 Rock reference. I still think it deserves a brief mention, though. So I (1) Cut it down from 59 to 20 words; (2) noted in that text that the reference was to a "fictionalized" Needmore; (3) added a link to the 30 Rock episode's page, as you wisely suggested.

I hope you agree with these changes. If not, I propose we get a third opinion on the Needmore article's Talk page, with notice served to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. What do you say? --tgeller (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am fine with the Needmore article now and certainly don't think this warrants a dispute resolution. The only other comment I have is if they actually filmed 30 Rock in Needmore it would be more important, but I don't know if that happened.Jstuby (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Karasnov crater 4181 h1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I placed the tag because the crater name is spelled wrong and I uploaded a version with the correct name, so delete it.Jstuby (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for finding and adding the heliotrope image to the Heliotrope_(instrument) article. Searching through the source text, I found that there are actually three heliotropes in this image (despite the singular form of the caption in the text) and fairly detailed information on each and how it was used in the source text. I added summaries and links to that information in the image's page, and updated the caption in the Wikipedia article to reflect this. Good find! Macchess (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jstuby, and great thanks for uploading many nice images of lunar craters! I'd want to ask you — couldn't you upload them to Wikimedia Commons instead of en-wiki? There they would be accessible not only for en-wiki, but to all Wikimedia projects. The photos, taken by NASA spacecraft, are in public domain and are fully appropriate for Commons. Stas (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Don E Wilhelms 1972.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text ((di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>)) below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file was downloaded from a USGS website, so it is actually probably public domain because it is a work of the US Government, as stated in the "other information" block of the file description. Should I just change the license to that?

Wouldn't the file have met the contextual significance criterion? The image was a photo of the subject of the article. Oh well, fuck it, you already deleted it.Jstuby (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jstuby. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the crater area's (whole including the outer rim) part, it is unknown. The crater's whole area (just one example five of them) that is nearly circular but some of it having more area outside 1 x 3.1445 km (the pi) in diameter area including its perimeter but not circular but not inside. Some of the craters not fully circular, its area are estimate as it is not fully understood, someday, the crater area (not fully circular ones) will be exact. I am not adding similar sections. (On that I mainly put it once (not twice) a day for some weeks.) I also added distances between prominent craters on some articles which are okay (as they are more understanding nowadays, these mainly within the Equator and the middle of the Nearside). I calculated it via one crater's diameter (and others) and Google Moon on the estimate distance, earlier I did that around once a day, I do it once a week for some time. The view of the Earth part is okay, it does not have to need its own section titled "View of the Earth". View of the Earth on the Moon is only on the Nearside as to Ganymede with the view of Jupiter only on its Nearside, as Jupiter is larger, the outer portion of the Farside also sees a part of Jupiter at the closer moons. The Earth's atmosphere has a part where objects are seen slightly larger at the lower pane and smaller at the top. It is also on Mars. I guess it does not on the Moon as it has no atmosphere. I am not writing on proposed landing sites where humans would have a view of the earth. Not in some parts. The main parts of views of the earth are that (e.g. an area around 23.5N and 23.5 E and 23.5S and 23.5 E and 45N and 45E or 45S and 45E). The furthermost view of the Earth is I guess around 95E and 95W in the Farside.

A few articles with pictures inside each table updated from e.g. Apollo 17 picture to the recent LRO one (if/where available), roughly the same area as on the earlier photo, only with slightly more pixels (not less) are added on some pages that the photo in the article is not updated. One a few if it does not cover an area or covers more, it does not.

I also like what is also elsewhere on the Solar System. Even readership (including Lunar craters) are steadily and slowly rising.

I have a request on a possible creation of an article titled the "Lunar Equator".

Thanks. Terriffic Dunker Guy (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jstuby. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jstuby. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Jstubu for this award for 12 years of making numerous quality contributions to the Geographical sections of various articles such as Geology of Bedford County, Pennsylvania and Tuscarora Sandstone. A professional Geologist, Jstub has contributed to an abundance of articles on Geology, Geography and foundations in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. As a working member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Moon, he has shared his knowledge and expertise with thousands of readers over the last dozen years. Jstubu has an excellent record of participation in all the areas of the encyclopedia. He has a good track record of being civil, polite and helpful.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((User:UBX/EoTWBox))

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 22:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]