User talk:Djlayton4/Archive1

Not sure how this works..
Daniel J. Layton IV is very dedicated to supplying the world with accurate knowledge of his family history. This loyal reader of wikipedia would like to take a moment and caution Daniel that it is, however, an open-source encyclopedia.


 * Thanks for the message! I made a little user page for you, but you should probably make it better. After you write a message type four of these: ~ and it will sign your name and leave the time Djlayton4 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

His dedication to this website is strong, like an ox or an axe!
What a rapid response! The particular name of "~" by the way is a tilde. I see that you've also listed yourself as being very good at German, if I understand the translation correctly. Keep up the good work with the excellent articles, any really exciting ones you've translated from German to English? (or are you doing it the other way around?) Stdeve 21:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am just making sure you are aware of the proper name for everything, including tildes, because you obviously have such a great appreciation for knowledge. And yes, of course I remember the lighthouses! Great articles. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to writing an article of my own. Perhaps on the House of Waris (currently without an article), but perhaps not. Any suggestions?Stdeve 03:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IP for Voting
I assert my IP is the following 192.246.231.98 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This was me that posted this Djlayton4 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maples
Just wanted to compliment you for your amazing work on Acer rubrum and A. barbatum. Keep it up! Circeus 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At first I had wanted to use the toxic dead leaves of A. rubrum, but the article wasn't quite small enough when it was first expanded. I'll see if I can get some stuff from Van Gelderen's Maples of the world for thes articles. I had started a rework of Maple (User:Circeus/Maple), but never got around to actually completing it. (note: you might find stuff in the sources I had accumulated there. I haven't strongly looked into it.) Circeus 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * re: Tsuga template, I'll add it. I wanted to have it be latin names (as I did to the Trilliums template), but it was too much work, I'll do it another time. I'll also makes sure T. diversifolia goes on the main page as soon as it's completed. Circeus 00:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala Fir
The source is CONAP (Guatemala Protected Areas Council, as to the endemis, all the sources as INAB (National Institute of Forest and CONAP says so, I doubt that there is such sp. in Honduras and El Salvador, it only grows in the Wetern Highlands in Guatemala at very High Altitudes, Maybe there are in Chiapas mayasautenticos 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Authethicmayamayasautenticos 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done I Uploaded the file Pinabete.jpg Hope You Like it mayasautenticos 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Authenticmayamayasautenticos 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Wondering if you were able to help me.
I just noticed you seem to be currently located in Germany, so I was wondering if you could help me with locating (and possibly using, since my German is not very good, and I'm frankly not even sure the article is in German at all) a rather obscure source? Circeus 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The references are :
 * Murbeck S (1933). Monographie der Gattung Verbascum. Acta Univ Lund ser 2 29 (2):1-630. (Lunds universitets årsskrift. Andra avdelningen, Medicin samt matematiska och naturvetenskapliga ämnen = Acta Universitatis Lundensis. Nova series, not to be confused with Acta Universitatis Lundinensis Sectio 2, Medica, mathematica, scientiae rerum naturalium)
 * Huber-Morath Denkschr. Schweiz. Naturf. Ges.  87 :43 (1971) (Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft = Mémoires de la Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles)
 * In both cases, I am interested mostly in details about the taxonomic/nomenclatural story of Verbascum thapsus (which is under FAC scrutiny), and in any details they might include about its subspecies.Circeus 13:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps! Because I'm too flimsy? Asperger has mademe direct my interest into a wide range of interest, the two most enduring of which have turned out to be Botany/taxonomy/nomenclature and languages. I went for translation because it turned out I lacked the patience and proper mindset to become a good scientist (laboratories are my utter bane, and scientific reports are icky to write XD).
 * For the record, the Murbeck ref seems to be a multipart, but I don't know which would have V. thapsus. When I took the ref, it was in an article about Turkish hybrids that did not involve that species. The other parts, for reference, are
 * 22(1):1-235 (1925) (Celsia, which does not include V. thapsus AFAIK)
 * 32(1):1-46 (1936)
 * 35(1)1-71 (1939)
 * Circeus 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. The article can probably be featured without them, but I'm slightly obsessive like that. The Hubert-Morath ref was supposed to include a lectotypification of V. thapsus and it's why I was curious about it.Circeus 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob then. I'm sure I can do without Huber-Morath. No need to run after it.Circeus 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add whatever you feel appripriate to the article. I'm always happy to see additions! Circeus 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure there's anything that can be added to the description section for the plant without it being ridiculously too detailed. What I had hoped to expand on most with this ref was about the taxonomic relationships of V. thapsus within the genus. That is, what are the criteria for placing it in Bothrosperma sect. Fasciculata, and what are its closest relatives. We can't exactly expect something as detailed as the stuff we find in the Banksia FAs, but what is present in the article right now is a bit limited. Circeus 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ailanthus altissima
Thank you for the polite response! To move an article to a new name, you would first have to gain consensus on the articles talk page, in this case, the Tree of Heaven article. Basically, just ask the others if they agree, if they do, you can move the text. To be honest, page movement is not really my field, so I'm not entirely sure how you would actually go about moving the article. I will ask, then message you when I have more information. Hope this helps! --NeoNerd 14:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I had a look through the info, and if the move has support, you just click the move button next to the edit button. If the move is controversial, you can request it's movement at WP:RM. Again, good luck with your proposal.!--NeoNerd 14:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Me again! :-) I just noticed that under wikipedia policy, the article should be at Ailanthus altissima, so there is no need for a discussion, feel free to move it now.--NeoNerd 14:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Munich Coat of Arms
Thanks for reviewing it, and also good job with your tweaking it so that it passed. Your contributions are appreciated! :) Regards, WilliamH 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
Thank you for the reviewing the article Introduction to Evolution. Your kind remarks are appreciated. Increasing references should be an easy fix since all the information is general in nature and highly verifiable. We shall be resubmitting soon for GA status. Hope it will meet with you approval at that time. Thanks again. --Random Replicator 13:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vacant niche
Thanks for your suggestions - they should help a lot with improving the article. I'm not really a specialist in this area at all, so I can't make enough of the improvements myself without some considerable research. I submitted it mainly \to get further feedback on how the author's work could be improved upon, which you've done a great job at. I'll do a GA review myself before I make the next submission, which will hopefully one of the articles I've worked on myself for a change. Thanks again, Richard001 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

Mid-importance species article
I noticed that you tend to tag species article as mid-importance, something I believe is inaccurate. Most species that are not economically, ecologically or taxonomically significant are low-importance. Genus and small families generally go into Mid-importance for me. Circeus 17:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we went with IPNI which lists it as G.L.Nesom because there is another Nesom (M.Nesom, Margaret Nesom). Circeus 20:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * IPNI does indeed have data on subgeneric material (though one should remember that listings tend to be mostly restricted to american taxa). Subgenus Virgulus, for example, is here. Also, on an unrelated note, I was looking for non-IPNI sources for it and stumbled across this site, which also has materials on Goldenrods and Goldenaster I also came to find the Smithsonian herbarium type specimen register, which could prove to be a priceless source of images. My take on herbarium specimen being that they are non-copyrighteable because they are data without expression of creativity. In any case, many would be PD-US or PD-old. Circeus 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere
(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Article sources
The options are multiple. Such article are simply *begging* for primarysources or onesource, neither of which can be dealt away with so easily. You'll also want to look at refimprove. Generally, it is recommended that the use of such template be accompanied by comments as to what statements need fixing. As to the "clean and attractive" wording, I can't see a NPOV way to state it that would still be sourced, so the sentence should probably be rewritten to leave it out completely. Circeus 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bombax buonopozense
Think you could direct some attention at this article? I couldn't find much, if anything on this species with a quick google search, and so have no idea where you wanted to go with it, but User:Erechtheus keeps slapping a sources template on it, and I could do without a lame edit war. Circeus 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't access JSTOR right now, but if you can get the needed pages, I can translate them without problems. Or I'll do it myself when I go to uni to return some books.Circeus 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the sort of silliness that we must accept if we consider the stringent application of policy any useful. I could do with some more flexibility, but hey, from the other user's PoV, we were doing something similar at Kingdom Hall. Oh, and I've made a DYK nom for the article. Reminds me of my removal of expand on stub articles. I've actually considered making a formal request for it's deprecation altogether. Circeus 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Sorry about the confusion.--Carabinieri 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Eurybia divaricata
I'll be happy to look at the refs, I had considered DYK with that exact hook idea, but I think it's too old now. Circeus 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Verbascum thapsus
Thank you for attempting to inject some common sense into this discussion, and in particular for providing a point of view that is neither American nor British. What is especially ironic is that the article edits that prompted MPF's accusations of "American cultural imperialism" and bullying were made by Circeus, who is Canadian. It's difficult not to accuse MPF of anti-Americanism when he keeps making such comments. MrDarwin 18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quercus falcata
Done. Cheers. Circeus 17:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ailanthus altissima
I've started copyediting it and will make my comments separately. Overall, it's so far a very nice piece of work.Circeus 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Ailanthus altissima/Comments. Circeus 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty ready. I'd personally like to expand on the allelopathy when I get a chance (JSTOR as several good articles), I'll give another copyedit read and nominate it if you don't by then. I still think the "characters dispute" needs to have a source of some sort, though I suspect nobody will bother checking. Circeus 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And... There we go! Circeus 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arundinaria
I really like either. I'll offer both and the updater can choose. You should try making the nom yourself one of these days ;-). Circeus 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims do not belong in wikipedia.
Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and as such it aught to read like one and not like a religious tract. There is a lot of subjective hysteria in the world today about how living things are devastating the world, and destroying biodiversity. There is no scientific evidence that would lead one to adopt such a viewpoint. This kind hysteria has no place in an encyclopedia.

Introduced plants are neither good nor bad, they just are. Every introduced species brings good to the receiving ecosystem, and it changes the ecosystem in some way. Such changes are neither good nor bad, they are just changes.

Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view. And terms like infestation, invasion, etc are not neutral terms, they are strongly biased words. Words like naturalised, population, colony are neutral.

An example: In a section about making soap from Kudzu I deleted the perjorative biased unverifiable phrase, "which has devestated the southern usa". The phrase was just plain mean spirited, and had nothing to do with soapmaking. The phrase is certainly not neutral nor verifiable. The ecology of the southern usa today is basically the same today as it was before the introduction of kudzu. A few niche microenviornments here and there might grow kudzu from time to time, but it is hardly the huge problem the demagogues would have us believe.

Ailanthus altissima
Too bad I didn't think about this much earlier--I had done my master's candidacy paper on this species and its invasiveness and had a ton of references sitting around in a binder that I recycled just before I moved a couple weeks ago. I still might have some pdf files laying around that aren't cited in the article. Do you have access to JSTOR? There are some articles on there that aren't cited yet: Well, and I have a list of references I used for my paper that might give you more places to search. There are also a few newspaper sources that I don't see cited, stating Heisy's desire to prove ailanthone is a product that would do well on the commercial market and vision of A. altissima farming efforts to harvest the ailanthone. E-mail me through Wikipedia so I can attach some pdf files or documents for you if you don't have them. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Knapp, Liza B. and Charles D. Canham. (2000). Invasion of an Old-Growth Forest in New York by Ailanthus altissima: Sapling Growth and Recruitment in Canopy Gaps. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 127(4): 307-315.
 * Yep, I got your e-mail and replied yesterday to your gmail account--did you receive my reply? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say excellent job on the FA article! Way to go! I'd also like your opinion on protocarnivorous plant. I wrote it a while ago, put it up for peer review and got very few comments. I was thinking of going for featured article status. Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem -- enjoy your trip! I've been thinking about nominating that page for months, so it's no priority, just a stray thought. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki skylace
Looks like Hesperian is handling this for the time being. I've been taking some time off after my move and this was sort of a straw too much for me too (you can see a lengthy disagreement over something different at FLC on my talk). I have to say his edits are verging on trolling. Circeus 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jepson page number -- Ailanthus
Sorry, I haven't gotten to the page number yet, you can link to the UCJEPS page in the meantime. I will try to remember when I get a moment. Really nice job on the article, I think it turned out quite well, and you worked hard to incorporate appropriate technical information in a readable manner while working with other users. KP Botany 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar FAC
FYI: Manzanar is now being considered for FA status. If you like, please add your support here. Thanks! Gmatsuda 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you participate in judging featured article candidates, but I thought I'd let you know that Manzanar is now up for FA consideration. If you are so inclined, I'd appreciate it if you could put in your two cents (support or oppose) on the Manzanar FAC. It was nominated about a month ago, and things are going slowly. As of now, it looks like it's going to fail due to lack of interest, which is really quite sad. Hope you can help! -- Gmatsuda 07:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope
As you commented on the first FAC of Cunningham would you be so kind as to comment on the restarted nom. Thankyou in advance. Woodym555 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gossypium arboreum Romana.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gossypium arboreum Romana.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Acer barbatum
Hi Djlayton - GRIN does list Acer floridanum as the correct name (when treated at species rank), with the synonym Acer barbatum auct. non Michaux. That is the clear conclusion of Ward's 2004 study, that Michaux's original Acer barbatum is not the same as Acer floridanum. Obviously a lot of other texts are too old for this, or haven't (e.g. USDA NRCS Profile) caught up with this yet. - MPF (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We generally follow best recent evidence, and GRIN is certainly good on that, much better than ITIS which is generally pretty poor for plants. If anything is done with the article title, it should perhaps follow GRIN more completely in treatment as a subspecies of A. saccharum, though that is obviously more of a taxonomic opinion than Ward's nomenclatural conclusions. Not sure what your rather strident, aggressive comment about my edit to the opening means, all I did was tidy it a little by making the sentence structure a little easier to read. - MPF (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Any particular reason you chose to remove the description section" - I can put a header in there if you like. Of medium-sized, a 15-25m tree is exactly that; that would still leave it as an understorey tree below large (30-40m or more) trees. And clearly (from the USFS Silvics Manual) it can be (even if only rarely) a large tree. - MPF (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a ==Description== header back, hope that's better now - MPF (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I know it's all too easy to feel one 'owns' articles, done it myself too. PS Sorry for the delay in replying, been taking a short break from editing to get some other things done. - MPF (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of amphibians in the Shenandoah National Park
I have to say, and I'm sorry I have to say it, that (at least as far as I can see from the list and Shenandoah National Park), it is difficult to see a good reason to have this list on its own. I mean, why specifically amphibians for this park? It doesn't seem to have anything peculiar about it when it comes to amphibians (unlike if had a recognized large or unusual selection. If it does, it doesn't mention it in either article).

I could see variations along the lines of "amphibians found in Virginia protected areas" (or more generally "amphibians of Virginia"), or a "List of animals species in Shenandoah National Park", but this particular list looks (to me, anyway) too strictly defined to really be usefully encyclopedic unless you work it as a more detailed element within such a set with a less detailed master list. Circeus 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said "animals," I meant something closer to "higher animals", or even "vertebrates" (i.e. birds, mammals, fishes, amphibians and reptiles). The idea would be to keep such a list as simple as possible (with likely the bird list being summarized by family given its sheer length), with sublist providing more detailed accounts. To me, lists as specific as those are only viable when working within a larger set. A good parallel (I was also asked opinion about it) is List of townships in Ogle County, Illinois, a list I feel only work in the context of the larger List of townships in Illinois by county. Circeus 04:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, when I said a general list with detailed sublist I expected the master list would be like the various featured bird lists, with the sublists being closer to what you have in the amount of details. I won't really touch the list, given that mot likely my opinion is a bit fringy here, not enough that I'd be confident to end it to AFD, but enough that I wouldn't support it for FLC (that and a few improvements would be needed anyway). Circeus 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Rainy Blue Ridge-27527.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Rainy Blue Ridge-27527.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Rainy Blue Ridge-27527.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Rainy Blue Ridge-27527.jpg, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Rainy Blue Ridge-27527.jpg
You asked why this image should be deleted. It is because it also exists on Commons, and there's no reason for it to be in both places. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the URL -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rainy_Blue_Ridge-27527.jpg
 * It can still be used on Wikipedia, with the same code as before. See Image:Rainy Blue Ridge-27527.jpg. --Fang Aili talk 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Commelina question
I have heard about C. benghalensis having underground flowers. Are they self pollinated? Shyamal (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Commelina benghalensis, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
You wrote:
 * Here is a scientific, peer-reviewed journal that supplies a checklist of all plants used in homeopathy, which amounts to 801.

However, the link appears to point to the wrong article. Could you please double check your link (or better yet, give a proper reference for the article you're pointing to). Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Very weird - it took me to the wrong article, but seems to be working now. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Founders234.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Founders234.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

dyk nom

 * ...that the genus of moss called Polytrichum (pictured x 400 mag.) has adapted to trap moist air between rows of lamellae? by Djlayton4 a less trivial nom Victuallers (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)