This is just a reminder that you tagged this article with the {{GAReview}} template on 12/18/2007, which was 15 days ago. Please finish up your review, or remove the tag so that someone else can review it. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make an account on Wiktionary, but apparently my IP address is blocked from editing there. It says "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by EncycloPetey. The reason given is this: Vandalism You may contact EncycloPetey or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences. If you have an account, you can still edit your preferences when you are blocked.
Your IP address is 24.70.95.203." I don't really understand, I have never vandalized anything on any Wiki. So, do you think you might be able to help me, please? Shmooshkums (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Petey, I'm just a random editor who's seeking advice. I was curious to know if it's fine to quote from the same online article in the reference. To maybe help explain what I'm doing, I'm currently working on the article Akshardham (Delhi)inmy sandbox thing (as to be able to work on cleaning up the article in peace, as such), and if you look at the article in my sandbox, you'll notice I have a lot of quotations going on in the 'References' section. Most of the references are from the same article, but it's fairly huge... so I was curious to know if it's fine, really (being just one article).
Also, if you have time, would you be willing to briefly go over the work I've done to the article, everything that's referenced is the work I've done (even on the official 'Akshardham' article). By the way, I picked you randomly from the list of Admins, sorry if it's a problem, bro. I just wanna make sure I'm heading the right way for a REALLY GOOD article (Featured, if one day possible). I appreciate any help giveable, and thanks for at least reading. -- Harish - 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show more respect in your comments towards other editors. You called my section on the use of ideology in emblems and coats of arms "nonsense". I am a highly educated person who in his younger days wrote some highly respected books. I do not type nonsense. The material I included was directly stated in the sources. I think you did not spend enough time researching the sources. At an earlier point you had accused my sources of being less than reliable, while they were from European museums! I think you have a personal viewpoint here that is getting expressed through your lack of respect and frankly your comments are bordering on rudeness. Please show respect for the thoughts of others and if you do have a valid point, please argue it "clearly" and "logically" on the talk page in several paragraphs before you suddenly remove a well researched section that has taken much work by just calling it nonsense. If you have a logical point, I will be glad to debate it and research it further. Research is what I do well and I will be glad to debate the point in acivilized manner. Thank you for showing more respect in the future. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In August 2007 you blocked my Wiktionary account, alleging that I was repeatedly violating copyright laws. It is now January 2008 but you have yet to rescind the permanent block on my account. I have learned my lesson and hope that you will not continue to punish me. Andy85719 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EncycloPetey My apologies for causing you extra work today. You say that is not what the template is for, but perhaps you could explain what the template's intended purpose actually is, because if it is only applicable to the topics on the template it seems a little self-serving. I saw it as a way to link botany articles (some of which may be specialist, and possibly arrived at by linking from articles outside botany) to some of the major topics in Botany in a way that is consistent and can be modified uniformly across the templated articles simply by editing the template. I suppose my agenda as a lecturer in Botany is to make it easier for students to connect back to the core of the subject, which is otherwise quite hard to find.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you update the main page? (asked of 3 people, who will be first?) Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. However, I am not playing around, there were issues in the display of the box that I am trying to solve. Please indicate where it is displaying incorrectly and I will try to solve it Thank you Daoken 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have seen you working on plant articles and you seem knowledgeable. I was wondering if you could help me with the Garlic Mustard article. I deleted a sentence that claimed that self-fertilized offspring are genetically identical. This is very wrong since all the gametes of a given individual are not identical (due to crossover, random assortment, etc.), and contain different alleles. Therefore, the genes may recombine in a number of ways even though it is self-fertilization, since the sperm and ovule are not necessarily identical. How could inbreeding depression occur in self-fertilizing plants if they were merely "cloning" themselves (since inbreeding depression necessitates a change in gene diversity over generations)? Self-fertilization has been described as merely intense inbreeding, and since it is sexual in nature, it necessarily does not give rise to identical offspring.
A user reverted my deletion, and (s)he has a source, but I believe it is self-evident that this source is incorrect. Do you agree? --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I mistakenly thought bryophytes were vascular. Thanks for quickly reverting it. I presume you'll have no objection if I try to work the reference into the bryophyte and liverwort pages. Zamphuor (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, I quote "Syn- (sin), prefix, latinized form of Gr. xxx (= xxx prep. with), together, similarly, alike". Other senses in which it can be used include bring together, group, congregate, join, unite. No mention of plus, which is I submit, not quite the same concept.Plantsurfer (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your remarks on my page. Much appreciated. Do you think the expert template on Monoicous is still necessary? Also, I note that Plant Cell has no Botany template attached despite being a topic on the Botany template. Accident or design? RegardsPlantsurfer (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thanks for your comments regarding some recent edits. I was greatly concerned that I may have been so wide of the mark, so I've carefully reread the papers -- perhaps I am missing their point, but I couldn't quite pin down how they backed up what you suggested. I've provided a couple of quotes from the papers below, which I have endeavoured not to take out of context;
InKenrick & Crane 1997, Box 1
...diversity in extinct Cooksonia and similar early fossils (such as Tortilicaulis, Uskiella, Caia) suggests that simple early land plants (once grouped as rhyniophytes) are an unnatural assemblage. Some Cooksonia species may be among the precursors to vascular plants (protracheophytes), whereas others are vascular plants apparently allied to the clubmoss lineage.
In the abstract of Gerrinne et al.:
Several characters of Tortilicaulis and Psilophyton (morphology of the spores; position, shape and sinistral torsion of their sporangia) as well as hypotheses about their respective modes of dehiscence suggest the existence of a link between rhyniophytoids such as Tortilicaulis, and the Trimerophytina.
And in their concluding paragraph:
Until the nature of the conducting cells of Tortilicaulis are elucidated, the affinities of the genus will remain conjectural. Nevertheless, it is suggested that Tortilicaulis might be ancestral to the Trimerophytina.
This paper, as well as many others, also makes reference to the ornamentation of their spores.
Regarding the microphyll question, it seems that the concept of a microphyll is somewhat bogus. In the sense I'd been introduced to the term, horsetails have only a single vascular trace, and are therefore mycrophylls by that definition. By your definition they are megaphylls. This reference includes a discussion which I will soon bring in to the articles to clarify points.
I take your point on the Equisetum intro; it originally gave the molecular data a little too much POV.
Thanks for drawing my attention to all these points.
All the best
Verisimilus T 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Microfossil": Tortilicaulis oflheus; "spores": Crassitate: all surfaces with grana.
although in a few cases the same genus
has been recorded in different types of sporangia
[e.g. AneurosporainCooksonia and Salopella;
miospores with microgranulate ornament in
Tortilicaulis (Plate II, 7, 8)
Several characters of Tortilicaulis and Psilophyton (morphology of the spores; position, shape and sinistral torsion of their sporangia) as well as hypotheses about their respective modes of dehiscence suggest the existence of a link between rhyniophytoids such as Tortilicaulis, and the Trimerophytina.
I wonder if you can help me with this. On 29 December I removed several large blocks of text from the Organism article because they were superfluous to it, but I copied them to talk:Ecosystem, talk:Biome (my assessment of the appropriate homes of these sections) and also to talk:Organism in the hope that editors of those pages would pick up the baton and incorporate them. However, there has not been a word of response from any users to this move. I feel that these sections may be useful, and I am writing to ask that you cast your eye over them and let me have a view as to whether they should be discarded or incorporated. If the latter, is there any way the sections can be relocated while retaining their edit history??Plantsurfer (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is insanely hard to find distribution - how do you feel about the article now? I was musing on tossing it up at GA again.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit [1] added a link from a page about bryophyte biology to a page about flowers. The two articles are not about the same content, nor will they be. The English equivalent for Spanish monoicaismonoecious not monoicous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of confusion about the naming of bryophyte taxons. Please tread carefully and ensure You are on the side of the truth in these matters. --Etxrge (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Scadoxus, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Scadoxus puniceus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
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 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aproposed deletion template has been added to the article Vermiform, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}}
to the top of Vermiform. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Myristicaceae-stub}} all done. :-) Rkitko (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I read what you wrote about my terminology ramblings, I saw quite a few tribus being added to taxoboxen recently!! thanks -- carol (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another word that seems to have diverged. As villous it means "Abounding in, or covered with, fine hairs, or a woolly substance; shaggy with soft hairs; nappy" and is only in Webster 1913 (not also in wordnet), but here it is a redirection to villus which is in WordNet. In Webster, the word villus has two meanings one botanical and the other anatomical and in wordnet it has only one meaning which is anatomical. All of that makes me want to only use the word villous in my articles.
I really didn't like the way that glabrous here links to an article about hairless naked people either. -- carol (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On2 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Euryale ferox, 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. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi i wanted to ask you if you could have a look to the new version i did of the prokaryotic cell. if everything is ok i will ask people to delist the last version and feature this one. :) -LadyofHats (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - an error, I was pasting and got confused.Osborne (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi, i checked both the pages you mentioned. surprisingly, they give the same count for me. May i request you to clear the cache in your page and see if they tally? or you may also refer the official wiktionary statistics page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary#Statistics . thanks--Ravishankar (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a short bit for Gronophyllum and while searching for external links found this which indicates pretty clearly the inclusion into Hydriastele. As the publishing is a relatively recent one it is not reflected in much of the literature. Shall I scrap the Grono or go ahead and create it? Also, I see you are adding tribal delineations to the taxocontent. Do you recommend my adding them to taxoboxes or do you intend on working through the family systematically? And one other question - At least one book I have lists most of the original publications like Griffth, Calcutta Journal of Natural History 5:22 1844 etc. Is referencing for the original description a good thing to include in any given article, and if so, should I just find a reasonable place to insert it like any other inline citation? And on the same note, many of these same description entries are not just a simple nature journal reference, in cases where somebody named something one thing and somebody else came and corrected them or reclassified or whatever so you get something like (Beccari) Burret, Botanischen Gartens and Museums zu Berlin 15:7333. 1942 Lectotype E. conferta (Griffth) Burret (Salacca conferta Griffith) (see H.E. Moore 1963c) Salacca section Eleiodoxa Beccari, Annals of the Royal Botanical Garden, Calcutta 12(2):71 1918 - and since I seem to have misplaced by botanical notation-to-English dictionary I cant tell who actually did what and when. Do you know of a good link to help explain such cases, or better yet, an interpreter in the Tampa Bay area?Mmcknight4 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much - just wished I had seen the link before I wrote the article. If I create any stubs shall I include tribal ranks or will you get around to it? There seems to be subfamilies, tribes and subtribes and I didn't know if all were worthy of inclusion.Mmcknight4 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You supported A Farewell to Arms, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you have completely restored Posidonia, would you mind having another look. cygnis insignis 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. Liverwort points to a separate disambiguation page. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EncycloPetey, there is a new article on a Chinese athlete Jin Jing. We want to push this article onto the "Did you know" on the main page. Could you give us some comments on the talk page of that article? How should we improve that article? If it's a good one, could you please help us put this article onto the "Did you know"? The question could be '[Jin Jing|Who] is called the "Smiling Angel in Wheelchair" by Chinese people?' Thanks!--Supportjinjing (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 'Petey. Not sure if you remember our conversation from a while ago on page redirects with talk pages that have the PLANTS project tag on them. I genereted the list here in your user name space. I finally got around to fixing them and I'm about to finish (I have about 30 or so left). Do you mind if I just delete the page after I complete the list? I've also created a longer, updated list that duplicates many of these at User:BotanyBot/sandbox2. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please unblock ip 71 i mean on wiktionary. --71.254.97.20 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Some of us have been trying clear the category CAT:SHORTFIX. Because your user page uses older syntax for the template {{shortcut}} three times it appears in that category. Could you edit your protected user page so that:
In other words just remove the double brackets. Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Yes, the removal was intentional. The URLs are identical to the landing pages of the DOIs. Since a DOI is a stable link, the url link is redundant. As it is prone to "link rot" - i.e. breaking and needing fixing - the bot removes it if it is 100% sure it is redundant. Thanks for pointing them out, though!
Smith609 Talk 14:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Please do not remove requests for references -- stub pages are no exception from the rule that all Wikipedia articles require references published by reputable third party sources. Thank you for your understanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finally getting into the revision history of User:Arkuat/Taxonomy far enough to get around to thanking you for your edit of 2007 August 14. Sorry it took so long. --arkuat (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a mistake somewhere. Second time I made sure that the way table was viewed did not changed. What browser are you using? I did checked page under FF 2.0.0.14 and IE 8 Beta 1(IE 7 compatibility mode). The first time clean up function had a bug, which ruined table, that bug supposed to be fixed in development version of AWB, the one I'm working with. As for Antarctica capitalization, I never meant to fix because it a binomial name there. Unfortunately, AWB do have annoying bug, even if user reject spell correction, edit summary still report all corrections as being applied to the article. It was reported by multiple people and, hopefully, sooner or later will be fixed. TestPilot 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is a tough one to work around, as the error lies with the publisher's database. I'll think about what I can do. Smith609 Talk 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from Scotland. I have an amateur interest in animal life and contributed Fauna of Scotland a while ago. Recently I decided that the absence of Flora of Scotland was disagreeable and started that too. I knew it was going to be an uphill struggle as I know very little about plants. I therefore came as some surprise to discover that our hills and valleys are teeming with bryophytes of (apparently) international importance. I am still struggling with the article, although I think it is starting to take shape. In writing it it became clear that the non-vasculars section was going to fill up with red links and I am doing my best to reduce this - hence my recent request for assistance. I am afraid Shaw & Goffinet isn't easily available to me and moss taxonomy is clearly a tricky subject so, I may continue to grope around in the metaphorical undergrowth for a while. I have now added Hylocomium splendens and Bryum dixonii is on its way. I realise it may be something of an imposition but are you happy for me to mention these in the hope that you will take a look at the Taxoboxes? I'll probably end up creating about a half dozen more. It's fine if you are to busy of course. Regards, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that stuff in the back of the refrigerator moss? I expect moss to be green and perhaps that growth will achieve that color -- I will just wait to see what it matures into....
What brought me here was that I wanted to thank you for assessing an article I was working on. I don't like assessing articles I started or expanded and the arguments I avoid between me the starter or the expander (not the gtk kind) and me the assessor are dull and worthless. -- carol (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hylocomium splendens, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Keep up the good work! Angelic Raiment (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] |
I was surprised to find that you reverted my latest edit to Equisetopsida. Firstly, because of the specific cautions against reverting generally, stated in both WP:Etiquette and Help:Reverting. Secondly, because my edit was an attempt at compromise, responding to concerns you raised in your previous edit comment; and that I explained such in my edit comment and, further, expressly suggested a path of negotiation. By contrast, your reversion summary stated that my contribution "adds nothing". Respectfully, I do not find that this embodies either the spirit or specifics of WP:Etiquette.
The goal of my edit was to add context to the introduction to better facilitate understanding and appreciation of the subject, specifically evolutionary context. I have made another edit in an additional attempt to pursue this end, and look forward to a collaborative process reflecting the benefits of collective contribution that have made Wikipedia so successful. ENeville (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! Now fixed. Smith609 Talk 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello petey, it me PapaSmerf (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC), remember, 1 of 3 you blocked off Witionary for using it as a chat room. I just wanted to ask why? Why? WHY!? We did nothing wrong; all we did was converse over ideas. We might have chatted once, but still, a simple warning to let us know what we were doing was wrong would have sufficed. I mean really, can you blame us, the section said "discussion", it's easy to interperet that as somewhere to talk with the other users. I just don't understand any of it one bit, please explain. And you know, if this all is just some crazy misunderstanding on my part, I know I speak for all of us when I say I am truley, truley sorry. I hope you can send me something back to answer my questions. Thanks PapaSmerf (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo man. You an admin yet? How's that biceps article working out for you? You should get a Bot to archive your Talk page automatically. Hammerfist (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here. -- carol (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, that's an interesting point, but most organisms do contain ether lipids, so they're not alien to other forms of life. The proteins and stuff would be the same too, so archaea would have nutritive value. Found a ref! link Tim Vickers (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that other features of Horneophyton further place it in the Hornwort stem group; trawling my memory I think it was a combination of gametophyte/sporophyte interactions and features of its branching.
Regarding the en-dashes – I installed a java script that purported to update hyphens to en-dashes where appropriate, but it was changing URLs and ISBNs so I disabled it. But IT WON'T GO AWAY! Which is causing me much costernation... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've nominated this as a FAC, so have withdrawn the Good Article nomination. If you have time to review the article, I'd much appreciate comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping in, guys, but from the instructions at WP:FAC: "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time." Pick one or the other, but presumably FAC is the desired outcome; I've already removed the nom from GAC. :) María (habla conmigo) 20:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to interrupt that -- I just wanted to tell you that while I was blocked, watching my article which was in the history of a redirection be tagged for deletion was a horrible experience. You tagged it -- or that is what appeared to happen from my blocked view of things.
The best discussion of this that I had can be found here. And I would like to mention that the last few things I did before I was blocked was to work on that ficus article.
Good luck fitting articles into contest requirements; I should be curious to know if after it is over with, if you think that kind of thing makes for good articles for the subject or not. -- carol (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'll refer you to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages
Second, it is the ONLY way to deal with most of them. They cannot be integrated into the article text. They are full of information which is essentially useless, and does NOT have anything to do with the subject of the articles they appear in, they are about the subjects of the OTHER articles which just happen to (usually) contain some passing reference to the article in which the "in popular culture" section appears. This kind of information cannot be integrated into the article text.
What happens when you try to separate them out into separate articles is those articles either develop into giant lists of trivia (which, since the article title is usually "such and such in popular culture" isn't actually irrelevant to the subject of the article), or they get recommended for deletion. (And rightfully so, really)
And what happens when you say "c'mon guys lets not do this trivia section stuff" or "can someone clean up this trivia section" is NOTHING. Nothing happens.
I was trying to figure out if the information I was deleting was relevant, and I didn't delete all those sections in their entirety. But at least I'm DOING SOMETHING about the problem. Andy Christ (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you think it can be turned to prose, do so. I do not see any form of coherent thesis in that list. I notice you've added some items of similar format to another section (which does have an obvious contribution to the subject, as it is evidence of its notability), but in that case loaded it with weasel words. I'm guessing you've got some attachment to the subject...otherwise you wouldn't have been aware enough to add anything. If you feel there is something to that section and that it's fixable, fix it. If it isn't fixed within a few days, I'm deleting it again. Andy Christ (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules And what you linked me to isn't even a rule. If you think it can be turned into a coherent section or integrated into other sections, then do it. Until then, don't threaten me for doing what I think is right.Andy Christ (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. With and without javascript enabled. I will turn that off again as soon as there seems to be problems, but for now, it really is used well for that page. -- carol (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your last comment, deleted before the page was added to the DYK update: I am not advising you to violate WP:FORK. I was just saying that the information you had there, and didn't have there, created issues for me when I, knowing nothing about the subject, tried to verify the facts in it that you had highlighted as the hook. Vishnava fixed the problem ... I wish the text he added had been there when I was trying to verify it. Or, if you had added something in the intro that said "the world's largest herbarium is at the ..." and then footnoted it explaining how it came from the two collections added together, that would have been acceptable.
Verification should be easy for any reader to do. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ever sense the use of software? I called it a smell on a different talk page recently. I said that this edit history had the odor of Git (software) to it. While I do not actually 'smell' software, if asked to assign a scent to software, I would give git the smell of skid marks. Both, smells, actually, depending on how the versioning software was being used. The smell of rubber left on the pavement after the spinning of tires, often seen in movies for a fast getaway and well, the smell of the other for the smell of misuse and abuse ....
This software would have had to been used from someone with a computer that has shell access to the computer which hosts wikipedia. -- carol (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of herbaria, 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. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Its a bit confusing for me with that stub article, since as far as I have seen the gold standards of species delineation in prokaryotes is governed by Woese's interpretation of bacterial evolution, Bergey's and most commonly these days on the Report ad hoc committee bacterial systematics. Do you think I am lost?? I very well may be.. lol. :D Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I added the article back. I did not know that removing it from the nominations page meant that it would be included in the queue for the next update. My appologies. As for the "unattributed statements", everything in that article is attributed to a source. The plagiarism claims are false, but one may question why the same names of organizations Mrs. Jorgensen served on that appear in the main source similarly appear in the Wikipedia article; I cannot make up an organization, thus they will match what those in the source said. Happyme22 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flushed with over-confidence from my moss adventures I thought I'd try a lichen. The resulting carnage is here. At least two sites suggest that J. scotica and G. scotica are synonyms, but once source has the former growing in the Cairngorms and the other (quoted at length verbatim at the bottom) has the latter elsewhere. The former may post-date the latter, but I don't want to get two species confused. I am baffled by the taxobox as everything is red. Perhaps I should give up and get on with something I actually know something about, but before I do so can you assist, or point me in the direction of someone who might? Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps unwisely I persevered with a couple of lichens and then returned to the realm of bryophytes with Plagiomnium medium and Tayloria lingulata, which would doubtless benefit from making you acquaintance. They may be the last for a while (you will be pleased to hear). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is the result of fighting vandalism. I don't think I will be much helpful there although I was the one who made the collage image in the infobox, and fixed some MOS issues. Please keep up the good work since such core article should be a FA. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to add too much detail on this, since the reason is rather technical. The removal of the hydrogen improves the yield of energy from the anaerobic fermentation, by shifting the redox balance of the gut. The hydrogen itself is neither toxic nor dangerous, since this all occurs in strictly or mostly anaerobic conditions. I'll see if I can find a good reference that explains this. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hydrogen is a waste product that builds up and reduces the amount of energy the fermentative organism gets from fermenting more cellulose. The archaea remove the hydrogen, shifting the reaction back away from chemical equilibrium. There is a much better review here, I'll try to work it into the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that review and a single sentence to the "interactions" section. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section of 'Arrangement on the Stem' of the leaf article, the statement "The fact that an arrangement of anything in nature can be described by a mathematical formula is not in itself mysterious" is POV; in addition it is not backed-up by references. It should be altered to be NPOV or be deleted. By deleting the referenced information that I had provided on this matter you attempt to leave you own point of view unopposed. This is against policy. Please take action to correct this or stop hindering my attempts to balance the information. Thank you--Tarquilu (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.
See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. I'm sure there will still be plenty of work when you return! Hope the doctor works out OK Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for working hard to make Archaea accessible to the interested lay reader! We autodidacts really appreciate such efforts! Awadewit (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] |
![]() |
The Bio-star | |
Thanks for all your help with the FAC on Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] |
The article I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2006 was removed unfairly and I have been practically blocked from editing in my efforts to restore. Can you help? The article went to deletion review and the outcome was in favour of "to keep" however it was removed as well as all references to this artist on relevent lists, such as Canadian Artists, and Canadian Painters.76.64.153.167 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Jane Rushmore (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On8 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eat This Book, 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. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is NOT passed at this point for Version 0.7, though it would be a good candidate. It HAS been included in the SOS Children's CD put together by User:BozMo, who collaborates with us but does independent releases. Once we get the selection bot fully going (this month, I hope) we will work even more closely. At this point, this list indicates that the article would be comfortably selected for Version 0.7 even if it were assessed only as Start-Class, so now it's B it will be a definite "yes". If you want to make a manual nomination, you can do that as well. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On9 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franz Stephani, 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. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we've had four men's heads on Main Page before (many times, including one of the today's) and I think it is a rare opportunity to use a picture of a Japanese person. I try to use something else other than human headshots but it is not always available. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really correct to say that one of its species "produces" ecstacy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine), which is a synthesized drug? I know you are an expert in this area but I am just asking to confirm it. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On13 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Magnoliidae, 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. |
Rudget (logs) 16:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done one, and will get around to the others. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my window (widescreen) it looked like another one was necessary to balance the main page. I guess on standard comps it looked fine then. That's alright though, for once we don't have a backlog of hooks to plow though. Wizardman 23:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Speer,
I have read the guideline you cited, however I did not find anything that recommended against creating the redirects I have been creating. I have been creating these redirects because they facilitate the usefulness of "G. species" disambiguation pages (ex. A. vicina). The value of these disambiguation pages has been established by several discussions on the topic that envolved members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology. Because some of the redirects have been deleted, the disambiguation pages are no longer nearly as useful. If you wouldn't mind recreating the few redirects you deleted, it would be a great aid to the effort to improve this area of Wikipedia.
Thank you,
Neelix (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that assume good faith means that you ought not to have characterised (edit summary) the links to the Campbell Lab as spam. Links to a research group studying the genus are, in my humble opinion, eminently reasonable, and the editor may well have reason to deprecate the Wikipedia species articles in comparison – I've glanced at a few and some are rather thin. It seems likely that we have someone who understands the taxon, but not Wikipedia processes; in which case we would want to encourage him to contribute in the appropriate fashion. It's unfortunate that he's using a non-fixed IP, as that makes it difficult to engage him in conversation.
I suspect that User:Shadbush is the same person.
I haven't found a justification for dropping A. lamarckii, but A. spicata and A. stolonifera do appear to be the same plant, and I've proposed a merge (Talk:Amelanchier stolonifera). Lavateraguy (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that text because it is far too long and serves no useful purpose. pages are not supposed to be more than 40K anyway, so "it was 50K" is not a good reason for reverting.
I take it that you think the plot summary serves a useful purpose? Would you agree it is unnecessarily long and detailed? BillMasen (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have a mop and keys, feel like addressing Aaxxll's repeated removal of all citations, references, and footnotes from the Hawayo Takata article? Thanks! – House of Scandal (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I hadn't really looked into the pronounciation issue until your mis-post, I do think that whoever it was that was arguing against your pronounciation may have been onto something. Funny how things work. :) I've dug up "mah-kay-mah-kay" from this source, which I took the liberty of using to justify a change on the bird-man's page, but I didn't want to edit the dwarf planetplutoidspace rock's article before running it by you though. It seems to be corroborated by various Google results that predate the dwarf planet's naming. The Tom (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
With regard to the Hippocratic Oath statements, they are of significant value to the reader and the article linked to is of substantial content which provides detail to the reader as to the persons who have made the suggestions.
I would appreciate it if you would simply modify the sentence structure, if you do not approve, rather than deleting useful additional information...
Best Wishes Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachyon502 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
The key problem is that the information is not significant enough for a general encyclopedia article on Physicist. Each article should contain the most relevant information, not every possible scrap of potentially connected information. Lots of people have made comments about physicists; this one has had little to no impact
I certainly understand your point and perhaps there is justification for the information being too 'scrappy'. The problem I have is that the information is definately relevant to an enquiry about physicists and through current events is beginning to have a larger impact via debate within the scientific community.
Without creating a new page on the ethics of physics (most probably a stub), I am somewhat at a loss as to how to include this otherwise useful information and to prevent the Hippocratic Oath for scientists article from being a wiki orphan. Tachyon502 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent you a short email; a reply would be much appreciated. Thanks! Knepflerle (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EncycloPetey! It is nice to meet you! --CupPup (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)CupPup[reply]
I see you removed the etymology of Dinner claiming there was no evidence that it was derived from disiunare. I wondered about this since the etymology sounds authentic (I thought of the French déjeûner), and I see that OED (or rather the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology) derives it from "Rom. *disjunare for *disjejunare break one's fast, f. dis- + jejunium fast". Would you object restoring the etymology on this evidence? Nick Michael (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel humbled before your extraordinary knowledge, and am happy that there are people like you about! I do realise that *disjunare is a back construction, and it is interesting that OED doesn't include it – whence this disparity, I wonder? But enlighten me on one point: Spanish being a Latin language, surely ayunar must derive from some Latin root. Likewise (in a language I understand) French jeûner must be cognate. I wish I had studied linguistics! Nick Michael (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it – I should have checked the edit history. Thanks. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)S[reply]
I have replied to your message at User talk:Tearanz. While I appreciate that a single user adding multiple links to their website is normally spam, Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand is a high quality government-owned online encyclopedia, and the editor asked permission at the New Zealand Wikipedian's notice board before placing any links. All editos who have commented on the matter both there and until now, on their talk page, have praised the links. This is clearly not linkspam.
I will restore the links.-gadfium 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I see you're part of Wikiproject Plants, and that you are one of the most recently-active participants. In that case, you might be able to help me here: There's an AFC suggestion in one of the archives which has not yet been reviewed. It's on a man who has discovered several species of orchids, but I'm not sure if this establishes notability. I have copied the post onto one of my sandboxes; would you please look it over for me, and give your feedback? Thanks!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Encyclopetey, some time back you showed me a trick for forcing text to run alongside a Contents box. My attention span is so short I have forgotten how you did it and even which article was involved. Do you remember this, and if so, could you tell me again please? Plantsurfer (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you wrote "in tissues where wood develops, there are no longer bundles" in the edit summary, but the xylem in vascular bundles often remains even after secondary growth is well advanced.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is correct. The Cantino et al. publication uses a PhyloCode definition, which amends the Lindley circumscription. As such the amending publication is to be cited parenthetically. Please refer to the cited Cantino publication which shows how to cite PhyloCode definitions of clades. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note), DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've just created 8 articles that consist largely of non-existent templates. Were those supposed to go to wiktionary? Algebraist 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked me for making a formatting error?? If I do wrong, a simple note on my talk page will suffice. I will clean up any mess I made.
I can't even edit your wiktionary talk page to respond to you. Unblock me so I can continue working on what I'm doing. kwami (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You supported Steppenwolf (novel), which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see that you've signed up for the 1.0 review team. We need your help right now, because we had around 70 nominations last week! As you probably know, Version 0.7 is coming out soon, mainly based on the bot selection. This relieves us of the burden of manually assessing 30,000 articles, but we need the manual system to catch the articles that might "fall through the cracks" - such as a couple of missing provinces needed to complete a set. If you're no longer interested in reviewing, please can you remove your name from the list of reviewers?
You should consult the criteria, but I would suggest that most manual nominations of B-Class articles or higher are expected to pass, unless they are fairly obscure. You can get a good sense of the importance by looking at the article in the bot's list (check the talk page to find which projects have tagged it); an importance score (excluding quality) of <700 indicates that the article is probably too obscure, unless it is needed to complete a useful set (e.g., all the counties of England). I take the view that if someone who is knowledgeable on the topic spends the time to nominate the article, it is likely to be OK, but just occasionally people try to argue for an obscure or poor-quality article.
Thanks, by the way, for all of the biology nominations, an excellent set of articles that I enjoyed reviewing!
So, are you able to help? Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I've left a comment in each of the wikis this time. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33 5 October 2008 (UTC).
i heard all algae are protist. this need to be researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.137.162 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need to research something you heard? Where? From whom? Only grade-school books still use "Protist" as a coherent kingdom. College-level texts reflect current research that algae are not a single related group, but a grab-bag assemblage of unrelated organisms that happen to have chlorophyll. Some of them are plants, some are bacteria, and some belong to other groupings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
i have no time. i was also refering to the general public, not you. also, i heard this out of a high school biology book, and never heard of protist in grade school. and answer questions nicely, not stuck up and snappy. however, thank you for the info.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Non-vascular_plant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.137.162 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - sorry to bother you, but you seem to be the only "human" contributor to the Mutisia article. On researching an article that I am creating on Richard Pearce (botanist), my sources say that he discovered Mutisia decurrens. This species is not listed in the article.
On looking around, I see on GRIN that none of the species listed are mentioned in the article; e.g Mutisia acuminata, Mutisia clematis, Mutisia latifolia, Mutisia peduncularis, Mutisia subulata & Mutisia viciifolia, and none of the species in the article are shown on the GRIN page. I have also come across Mutisia ilicifolia[7] (this also mentions Mutisia decurrens) and Mutisia arachnoidea, Mutisia breviflora & Mutisia versicolor (all on [8].
The GRIN list is replicated at the WikiSpecies page.
I am somewhat confused - can you shed any light? Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your question on WikiProject Plants and thought I'd give my five cents' worth. Read my reply there. payxystaxna (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This item has had further comments added to it (which need answering) but it's languishing in the archive section here:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496 (item 43)
Could you un-archive it?
Many thanks Chillysnow (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your correction and the information that latus, lata, latum has the meaning of both broad and wide. I know as an alumnus of biology that you are totally right that in scientific papers wide is commonly used. teacoolish, life scientist, Cologne.
i'ltake thisfurther,blokin'pl4nothin'w/o tlk infitely,we'lc.[prapsu'dCHECKmy v1.edits,njudgeBYANDON ITSMERITS!--pldelete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]