User talk:Jnpet

On January 15, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dash-and-dot goatfish, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear my Fish Portal comrade, I just want to let you know that the Fish Portal now has a new exciting feature - The Fish Quiz!! Come try to win the game and have your name honored in the Hall of Fame, and have a fun break from editing wikipedia. Cheers --Melanochromis 08:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at

Hello my Fish Portal fellow, I just want to let you know that I nominated the portal for the featured status. Feel free to comment and vote here. For more information about featured portal, see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates. Thanks and cheers, --Melanochromis 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the translations! They are much appreciated! Drumpler 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a barnstar on your user page. If you'd like to move it elsewhere, that's fine, just felt you needed to be awarded for your efforts. :) Drumpler 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Pterois volitans Manado-e edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 07:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi Jens,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

Hi, Jnpet. Please take a look here. Best regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again.When an FP image on English Wikipedia is nominated for delisting, the creator of the image required to be notified about this. For some unknown to me reasons Commons delist process does not require the creator of the image to be notified, which IMO is wrong. I also like to let you know that you do have a right to vote to keep your image. Your vote counts. It is a very good point about a kid, who was prompted to learn more about nudibranchs after looking at your image. I remember myself, when I saw my first nudibranch. I had no idea what it was and where to look for the information on it. IMO the best quality FP image could have is not the quality of an image itself, but rather its educational value. I'm very glad you've got some of your underwater images to become FP. I had no such luck. If you have a time, please, take a look at only one of mine failed nominations. I'd like to thank you for your contribution of wonderful underwater images.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish I could have given up on FP as you did. I feel absolutely the same about this. Thank you for offering your help, but I will not bother you with my nominations. I'm sure you have more interesting things to do. Best regards and good luck with your pictures. I hope nudibranch would stay.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On weedy scorpionfish, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

It's great to see a venomous fish on DYK! --Royalbroil 00:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jens,
I saw just now the message you left on my Commons talk page. I'm once again in process of trying to avoid Commons and their FP process all together. I was able to never even look at Commons for almost 2.5 months!
Few days ago I came from Hawaii, where I've taken quite a few underwater images and every time I tried to focus on my subject while fighting strong currents I remembered Lycaon, who once said about your underwater image: It is not a good picture, it is not in focus and it is not a difficult object to take a picture of (it virtually doesn't move).. I wish I were able to forget this statement of his, but I cannot. The guy is a Marine Biologist, who opposed an underwater image taken in Antarctica! I believe it says it all. I do not think he's ever taken an underwater image himself, and he has a tendency to judge his own images much more softer than some other people work.IMO both the Commons and Wikipedia FP rules were not very smart to begin with and some reviewers do not even want to follow whateever good is in these rules. IMO they are doing everything possible to prevent the knoledge of something new and different from reaching Wikipedia readers.I'm afraid they would rather promote twelfth high resolution and high quality image of an Western honey bey than, for example, your amazing image of a scorpion fish.Anyway I wish you good luck in swimming in the waters of Commons FP. IMO it is much more dangerous and much less plesant than swimming with the sharks. If you wish to respond the message, please respond here. I'll check on it.
Best wishes, and I'm sorry I cannot help you with your FP struggle.
Mila.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mila,
I think you are right. It is a bit unpleasant at Commons. And you're smart to stay away. I even tried Valued Images, but even there Lycaon voted against one of my images. It's really no fun at all, and I think I'll stay away. At least for a while. Hope you came back with some great underwater pictures from Hawaii!

Cheers, Jens Jnpet (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please see this and if you can (I'm lucky enough to be able to read it, this) - pygmy seahorse is now used to describe a whole group of small seahorses - This article needs to be changed accordingly. I was perhaps a little quick to redirect it - I'll start a new article at User:smartse/pygmy. Please feel free to help. Smartse (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jnpet. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Jnpet. I saw your edit to the article Chromodoris willani today whereby you switched the photos around. I am not saying I disagree with your choice, but I am curious as to the rationale to your change. The other image that was there previously seemed to be much crisper when zoomed. Best wishes. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jnpet. I didn't mean for you to change the image back again, as you know no-one has ownership of any article here at wikipedia. I am relatively new here so was just curious as to what everyone was upto and to why the switch was made. Either photo works well so change it back again if you wish. Cheers and see you around Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am responding to your question about Creative Commons licenses from that talkpage here, as that page is more for discussion of the article rather than asking specific questions. In future if you have copyright questions about wikipedia, it would be better to ask at the copyright help desk.

To answer your question, there are a variety of creative commons licenses and some of them permit commercial use and some do not (those with a NC or non-commercial tag). However, the non-commercial usage licenses are not used on wikipedia. In regards to the image you uploaded the GNU Free Documentation License (and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license) that this image was uploaded under, explicitly permits commercial usage, provided that the use conforms to the other license requirements. So there is no way to stop a commercial firm (or anyone else!) producing prints of this image. This is not a new ability caused by the Creative-Commons license, it has always been allowed to make commercial use of images and articles on wikipedia. However, the old GFDL license is really meant for text (software manuals) and it can be cumbersome and difficult to understand it. Because the creative commons license is clearer and easier to understand a few years ago we went through a legal process of "updating" (see Wikipedia:Licensing update for more details about this) everything under a GFDL license to a compatible creative commons license to make licensing on wikipedia easier to understand. It sounds like you may not have fully understood the implications of the license you originally gave to your work, and part of the reason for the update was to help make it easier to understand the license permissions.

I hope that this won't dissuade you from continuing to upload such fantastic images to wikipedia though, they are a real pleasure to look through and great contribution to the encyclopedia. There are very good reasons why we allow commercial use of our images (for example to allow people to create print versions of encyclopaedia articles and I hope you will continue to upload and contribute images. If you would like to learn more about the creative commons licenses that we now use - the creative commons website has an excellent FAQ

It seems I misunderstood the original license. Back then, I did understand that it could be used commercially as a collection, such as an encyclopedia, but not outright commercial use such as the printing company in question. I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. Jnpet (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jnpet, I'd like to make a change in the photo locations and captions on Rhinopias frondosa but wanted to discuss with you first as some of them are your contributions.

The distinctions drawn between R. frondosa and R. eschmeyeri in the 2006 study by Motomura and Johnson cited on the page strongly suggest the taxobox image is of R. eschmeyeri rather than R. frondosa. According to the authors, R. eschmeyeri "differs from R. aphanes and R. frondosa in having two tentacles on the underside of the lower jaw (vs. 12-18 tentacles in R. aphanes and 9-24 in R. frondosa), lacking tentacles on the frontal below the eyes in anterior view (vs. 2-4 tentacles present in the two species), lacking distinct tentacles on the lateral surface of the body above the lateral line (vs. present), having short tentacles, without distinct branches along distal margins, on the supraocular and posterior lacrimal spines (vs. long tentacles, with distinct branches) . . . and having head, body, fins, and tentacles usually without distinct pigmentation or markings (vs. with elongate black-margined white markings each with a central region of yellow, green, or brown in R. aphanes and with numerous distinct circular dark-margined spots in R. frondosa)." The taxobox image has uniform coloration without the circular markings of R. frondosa, no tentacles frontally below the eye, and unbranched tentacles above the eye, and seems to have few tentacles under the lower jaw.

I suggest the image in the taxobox be exchanged with the one on left of page and the caption on the left indicate it is of R. eschmeyeri, shown for comparison. (See the Rhinopias eschmeyeri page for converse of this image combination.) Jason Marks (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!
	Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Sarah (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Jnpet. 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

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]