User talk:Conan Wolff

Draft:Epiphyllum baueri


Hello, Conan Wolff. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Epiphyllum baueri.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Conan Wolff

Thank you for creating Vanda jennae.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for adding the reference. I know sources have to be cited and it was intended as a start of a text. I'm not used to wikipedia and I hope I understood it correctly how to reply to a message. Conan Wolff (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes you have replied correctly. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Conan Wolff

Thank you for creating Baccharis intermedia.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for looking over the article. I'll be gradually working on it and sources will follow. Conan Wolff (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Conan Wolff

Thank you for creating Baccharis macraei.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for looking over the article. I'll be gradually working on it and sources will follow. Conan Wolff (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Amesiella minor moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Amesiella minor, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Josey Wales Parley 23:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Conan, This is why you need to include references in the articles you start. Unreferenced articles generally are deleted or put in draft then deleted after a few months. Please do take my advice and include the reference when publishing on the mainspace. Otherwise just leave the article in your sandbox until you do include one (or preferably more) references to it, then place it on the mainspace. If you need a hand with referencing I will help you out so ping me if you need. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your offer! I see it was a bit premature and I will improve in future. I added some references to the Baccharis articles in the meantime.Conan Wolff (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Amesiella monticola moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Amesiella monticola, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Josey Wales Parley 23:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I see it was a bit premature to submit the article and I will improve it. Conan Wolff (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amesiella minor has been accepted
 Amesiella minor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Amesiella_minor help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amesiella monticola has been accepted
 Amesiella monticola, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Amesiella_monticola help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Rusalkii (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hymenorchis javanica has been accepted
 Hymenorchis javanica, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Hymenorchis_javanica help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Rusalkii (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Problems!
Hello Conan Wolff,

Thanks for your work, but there are several problems that you are creating, especially with redirects. For example, you have redirected the article about Papillilabium beckleri to Plectorrhiza, losing all the information about the former, now known as Plectorrhiza beckleri. There is (was) a similar problem with the monotypic Schistotylus. Please fix the problem with Papillilabium beckleri/Plectorrhiza beckleri.

I've also seen articles such as Phalaenopsis lobbii and Vanda dives that have references with little meaning to most readers. What does "Bot. Mus. Leafl. 23 179 (1972)" mean? Do you have access to "Gard. Chron., n.s., 4: 130 (1875)" and "W.W.Saunders, Refug. Bot. 2: t. 85 (1870)"? Who were the authors of "Amer. Orchid Soc. Bull. 40: 1094 (1971)" and what is "Amer. Orchid Soc. Bull."?

I do appreciate your interest in orchids but ask that you slow down and seek discussion before creating redirects, especially when articles that took hours to research and write are lost. Gderrin (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, i see why that would bother you. I do intend to create articles with the information formerly contained within the re-directed articles. However, since it can be accessed through the view history I had postponed it to later on this week. Do you want me to take back the re-directs for the moment?

Well I thought it would be good to ciite the original publications of the species name. Alternatively I could just cite Plants of the World Online, which then provides that information indirectly. The authors are always given behind the species names. The publication of their work is then named in the references. Conan Wolff (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, please undo the redirect. Papillilabium beckleri is an accepted name at the Australian Plant Census, then discuss any proposed redirect. And please do not cite books or journal articles that you do not have access to. Gderrin (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, okay. I undid my redirects. I will be more careful with any cleanup activities in future. I just wanted to contribute to current nomenclature. Conan Wolff (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So should I delete the citations of the original species publications of the authors, or should I leave them there? I have access to the monographies of Vanda and Phalaenopsis, but not necessarily all the journals in which the species were published. But would't there be a benefit in pointing to the original texts? I mean that is where the names were first published. And this information is also given in many studies on the species. Conan Wolff (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Conan Wolff - can I thank you again for your work? I also appreciate the changes you've made as a result of my whinge. The article WP:CS, especially the section WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT are relevant. Certainly citing a monograph (eg. ) would be ideal. But books and journals to which you do not have access, should not be cited. Gderrin (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not all your redirects are inappropriate though. For example, all the species in Malleola have been transferred to Robiquetia and no articles have be written about any Malleola species. (The image of Malleola aberrans could safely be added to the Robiquetia article as Robequetia aberrans.) All the species in the Malleola list have equivalent names in Robiquetia (or are synonyns of a Robiquetia species or subspecies), apart from M. pallida, now known as Saccolabiopsis pallida. So the Saccolabiopsis list needs updating too.
 * All of which indicates to me that we need you to keep going! Gderrin (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the kind words. Your contributions to the presentation of the Australian flora is also commendable.

Alright, I will only name the authors in future and cite Plants of the World Online by the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. The book you mention by Martin Motes has received an "update", so to speak. He published another monograph "The Natural Genus Vanda" last year, which I actually got for my birthday and I do refer to it in Vanda articles.

There is certainly enough to do in regard to Aeridineae articles. Currently I aim to complete species articles of Phalaenopsis.Conan Wolff (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Conan Wolff (and ping ), any pointers as to what was up with Seidenfadeniella? It seems as is the redirect was justified - POW does treat the name as either synonymized or unplaced, so why was the redirect first implemented and then undone? I have reinstated it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I was asked to take redirects back, which I did. A lot of changes have been made in Aeridineae taxonomy in light of genetic evidence and the numer of genera have been reduced significantly. A lot of cleanup work needs to be done with obsolete taxa. But basically I didn't want to be suspected of vandalism, so I reverted these changes. Conan Wolff (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, a redirect seems low-risk and low-loss here (this was a minimal stub to start with), so in absence of opposition I´d stick with the WP:BOLD action. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I know, I had erroneously created the Seidenfadeniella article to begin with. Yes, the redirect to Cleisostomopsis should stay. Conan Wolff (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Aeridinae
 * added links pointing to Stereochilus, Arachnis, Dyakia, Sarcophyton and Eclecticus
 * Phalaenopsis pulcherrima
 * added a link pointing to Nomia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'll fix it. Conan Wolff (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Conservation status of synonyms
I came across your question at Talk:Phalaenopsis stobartiana, where you asked: "The conservation status for Phalaenopsis hainanensis, which is a synonym of Phalaenopsis stobartiana, has been categorized as critically endangered. Would it be permitable to say Phalaenopsis stobartiana is critically endangered, if the conservation status was assessed for a synonym?"

Conservation statuses for synonyms should not be applied to accepted species. There are a lot of "species" in the IUCN database with conservation statuses that are treated as synonyms by most sources aside from IUCN. These IUCN accepted "species" are often regarded (by IUCN) as endemic with a narrow distribution and thus meriting a highly threatened status. If purported narrow endemics are instead recognized as synonyms of a more broadly distributed species, the conservation status of the synonym would not apply. Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Plantdrew, thank you for the explanation! I appreciate it. Conan Wolff (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Conan Wolff. Thank you for your work on Nymphaea glandulifera. User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Conan Wolff (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graft hybrid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Conan Wolff. Thank you for your work on Nymphaea kakaduensis. Chaotic Enby, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Chaotic Enby Thanks! Conan Wolff (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Barclaya


A tag has been placed on Category:Barclaya indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Liz I have removed the deletion tag, after I published the first Barclaya species article. More will follow. Conan Wolff (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Conan Wolff. Thank you for your work on Barclaya wellyi. Dcotos, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dcotos ( talk ) 12:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dcotos Thanks! I appreciate it. Conan Wolff (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for creating articles related to botany. Cheers!

Dcotos ( talk ) 19:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 


 * @Dcotos Haha, thank you for the kitten and your kind words! Conan Wolff (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Conan Wolff Your welcome. Happy editing! Dcotos  ( talk ) 19:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Allenbya (plant) editing
Hi Conan Wolff, I just saw that you got around to creating an article for the nymphaceous Allenbya before I did. I did move the article to the species name as a disambiguation between it and the damselfly fossil Allenbya holmesae also from the Allenby Formation. I hope you dont mind if I take the next couple days to expand it to match the other Eocene Okanagan Highlands plant articles, such as Uhlia. when I finish I'll nominate the article for DYK with you as co-editor.-- Kev min  § 21:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kevmin You are of course welcome to extend the article. I think its certainly an interesting topic. I'm currently reading into the literature on fossil Nymphaeales. Conan Wolff (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kevmin I see the article made it to the "Did you know ..." section today! Well that's great - thank you! Conan Wolff (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Allenbya collinsonae
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)