User talk:EncycloPetey

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland
Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

biographies of editors of Flora Europaea etc
Hi. Many, though very belated, thanks for the barnstar you gave me on 14 July 2012. Since then I've done two more botanists namely E. F. Warburg and Werner Rothmaler, both of whom wrote or co-wrote floras. I'd be interested in any suggestions you might have as to who is still missing. Filling the gap is easiest where, as with Rothmaler, there is already an article in the wikipedia of another (European) language. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles discussion
Hi there. You have participated in past discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, namely about possible additions and deletions to the vital 1000 articles. There is a new, similar discussion there now, myself and other users are giving input as to whether they support or oppose the idea of certain articles being added or deleted from the vital 1000 like before. Some of the proposals have been brought up before, and some are new. There are only a small number of users giving their views but we would like more, if you are still interested we would appreciate your input there, thank you. Carlwev (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Radula (disambiguation)


The article Radula (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * There is no point to having a DAB for a single ambiguous term. This should be a hatnote instead on the unambiguous article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hutcher (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Radula (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Radula (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pam D  17:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA
There are a number of discussions occurring at Vital articles and Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you p  b  p  19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013
"Wiknic 2013 Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland Theme: Hyperlocal list-making" This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions

 * Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
 * Nearest BART: 19th Street
 * Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
 * Street parking abounds

EdwardsBot (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're invited...
to two upcoming Bay Area events:
 * Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
 * Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Present for you
Present for you on my user page. ;-) 512bits (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Heraldry and Vexillology project
Greetings! I have requested commentary from members of the heraldry and vexillology project at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Please comment there. Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
  muscle

Thank you for sharing your knowledge in many languages on "... Paleobiology, Latin, Galician, ... and ... almost any other academic subject", - keep working on Muscle, we need it! - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 238th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 238 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Botany, FA candidate
A group of editors have been working these last months to prepare Botany for FA status, and we have now nominated it. As a major contributor to botanical articles, we would be very grateful for your opinion of the article, and for your support of it if you feel that is merited. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Doctor Who Classic GA
Hi, in response to your comment at WP:WHO, really as much information on classic Doctor Who as possible is welcome. I've promoted Genesis of the Daleks and The Rescue using primarily the DVDs, and I'm working on Remembrance of the Daleks but I have two episodes to watch with information text and I'm not sure if there will still be references needed after that (if there are I can let you know). I also have DVDs for Earthshock, Day of the Daleks, The Romans, and Terror of the Autons, though I don't know when I'll be able to get to them extensively. I'd say just pick a favorite serial or something you would like to see improved. I supposed we could make a list of really notable serials...The Tenth Planet, Spearhead from Space, The Three Doctors, The Ark in Space, and The Five Doctors come to mind. But anything is appreciated! Glimmer721 talk  02:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather, I'm offering to make my resources available. I really don't have time these days to write much myself, and have other projects vying for my time. But if you are working on a story and would like me to send reference material your way, I can probably manage that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll let you know if I run into a problem with Remembrance. Glimmer721  talk  17:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Conocephalum conicum.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Blaming of harrassment etc
You blocked towering peaks so this user can't give a reason. TW just wants a complete deletion of what was written online. It was deleted by Prosfilaes. Just remove the article deleted online and not to let it appear ever. That is what TW was asking and it was not granted. I hope that as editor you have the right human consciousness and not to blame someone one sidedly... a teacher and from california- you know what ethics are199.101.171.244 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please post concerns about Wikisource at Wikisource. This is Wikipedia, with different admins, different concerns, and different policies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yam and Mint. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikispecies user box
I just wanted to remind you that you can promote Wikispecies by using the WS admin user box. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Cycad
Hi, you had asked me to look at splitting Cycad so that there was a place to link Medullosales. I've done what I think is a basic job. The pages could do with quite a lot of polishing, though. Do you know any good up-to-date(ish) references for generally accepted overall classifications of fossil plants, or even of the nomenclature? I didn't find my way to interesting material in this site. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. And what I have heard through paleobotanist friends is not encouraging in that respect. It's all rather piecemeal, and even well-studied groups like ferns often have the fossils left out of any cladistic study or reclassification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I won't feel like such a dummy if I ask some of them later this summer. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Streptophya
This issue is related to the one above by Sminthopsis84, namely that at the upper levels and outside the APG system there is no widely accepted classification of plants, whether extinct or extant. I noticed the recent edits re "streptophytes" in the Plant article. The problem is that there are two incompatible circumscriptions in current use. In the Adl et al. (2012) usage (which I think is more mainstream), Streptophyta consists only of the stoneworts (Charophyceae) and embryophytes; Charophyta is a clade well above Streptophyta. In the other usage, Charophyta is included within Streptophyta. See the Streptophyta article, which is poor at explaining the issue – it's been on my "to do" list for ages.

So I think that some qualification is needed whenever the terms "charophyte" or "streptophyte" are used; they simply don't have a well-established meaning when you don't even know which clade includes which. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(By the way, I forgot to say that it's good to see you around here again! We need more competent plant editors.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The 2012 usage isn't mainstream yet (and may or may not be), but you do have a point. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that I wrote "more" mainstream; I agree that none of the classifications are "mainstream". Even "established" classifications are less certain than they once seemed; some evidence emerged recently that bryophytes may be monophyletic after all. It makes life interesting for botanists but not easy for Wikipedia editors! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the papers that purport that bryophytes are monophyletic depend on a restricted data set, and thus suffer from the likelihood of long-branch attraction resulting from noise in the one or two genes that were studied. There is also still a significant problem with undersampling of some of the major groups of taxa--a problem that has plagued all these studies in bryophytes since they started doing them. One major German paper suffered from a failure to include any vascular plants in their study, so of course the bryophytes would look like a monophyletic group in their results. This particular area was my field of study in graduate school, and I've tried to follow it as best I can since then, although lacking access to a major research library has made that difficult. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: "Being here". I chime in a bit, but I'm spending most of my wiki-effort at Wikisource. I'm hoping we'll have a really good collection of sources on Ancient Greek drama, among other projects there. Though there are still a few articles I've intended to write or greatly expand for Wikipedia, and may get around to one of those sometime. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in with Peter coxhead's welcome; it is indeed good to see you here again, whether with lots of energy or simply with your well thought-out responses to a few matters. I've been wondering if there is some database of high-level nomenclature or fossil plants that wants wiki-style contributions such as adding the data from individual papers, but haven't found such a thing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen nothing either. At one time, I considered revising either the Equisetopsida (in the narrow sense of horsetails, calamites, sphenophylls, &c.) or the Marattiopsida, but kept finding dozens of papers out there describing new species and genera of fossils, without ever providing any synthetic articles bringing all the individual descriptions together or providing an updated classification. What I hear from my paleobotanist friends is that gymnosperms are even worse. The only collected work I ever found dealt with fossil bryophytes, and it is now very dated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is my experience as well as I noted briefly above. You can find individual articles giving molecular phylogenies of groups, but almost always with no attempt at a classification. There's no equivalent of the APG with an interest in synthesizing classifications for non-angiosperms. Even worse, when you do find classifications, they are often completely inconsistent with one another. The best I've found to date for fossil plants is in the article Polysporangiophyte; I keep looking for more up-to-date overall schemes, but haven't found one yet. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bryophyta s.s. and Marchantiophyta
Hello User:EncycloPetey

I was trying to add a classification scheme that was similar to the most recent phylogeny of the Marchantiophyta. Now if we were to include only schemes that had the general concensus of the scientific community the these pages would be devoid of many current research ideas. And isn't that what Wikipedia is about, showing the general user the many and varied ideas about these topics. So the ideas might not be mainstream at this point but it shows an alternative view held by some, also it can be said Galileo's ideas weren't mainstream at the time but was vindicated subsequently. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I do know what you were doing, but the classification schemes you added do not have the support of any scientific consensus. They are the result of a single paper, and also not the result of a general collaboration in the scientific field. The APG classification of angiosperms was a broad collaboration. The Goffinet classification of mosses was broadly accepted by bryologists. The Smith et al. classification of ferns has a broad acceptance in the scientific literature. This cannot be said of the latest Stotler classification of liverworts. The Stotlers publish a new classification every 10-15 years themselves, and there are several competing classifications in circulation. Choosing to use just one of the newer classifications, without a reasonably broad scientific consensus, violates WP:NOR and is inappropriate for any encyclopedic publication.


 * Your edits have also been problematic in a number of other ways, such as loading information into a taxobox summary that does not appear in the article, and which should not appear in a taxobox; you have been adding footnotes in section headers; and other problems as well.


 * If you believe that Wikipedia should adopt a particular classification scheme for a major group of plants, you can discuss that proposal in the WP:PLANTS group, which helps to add, coordinate, and maintain information about plants at Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Scytosiphonales


A tag has been placed on Category:Scytosiphonales requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon on 02.02.2020
Join us for the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon this Sunday, 02.02.2020!




 * I am delighted to invite you to the SPIE Photonics West 2020 edit-a-thon, at Park Central Hotel (Franciscan I, 3rd Level / 50 Third Street / San Francisco, California), on Sunday, February 2, 2020, at 5:00-7:00pm.


 * Newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome to participate alongside SPIE conference attendees. Admission is free. Training will be provided.


 * Details and sign-in here

See you soon! All the best, --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination for merging of Template:Seneca the Younger's plays
Template:Seneca the Younger's plays has been nominated for merging with Template:Seneca the Younger. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"Muscle fibre" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Muscle fibre. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 01:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Muscles
Hello EncycloPetey, would you be in favour of keeping Muscle tissue as the main covering page with pages now at Skeletal muscle, Cardiac muscle, and Smooth muscle changing to Skeletal muscle tissue, cardiac muscle tissue, and smooth muscle tissue, with info from the page Muscle merging with these other pages? I'm not really familiar with the histories but have noticed that smooth muscle was called smooth muscle tissue in the past. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to changing Skeletal muscle --> Skeletal muscle tissue (etc.) I do not think it matters either way. Each of those articles is about a specific kind of tissue, really.  But I do NOT agree to merging muscle into muscle tissue or the other pages.  The expectation from the average reader is to find a general article at Muscle, and that should be the location of the general article. Even the human anatomy articles have this expectation, with opening sentences such as "The biceps ... is a large muscle...".  The biceps is not a large muscle tissue; it is a large muscle.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to find an alternative as you are clearly against the removal/merge of Muscle tissue page to Muscle. The example of biceps belongs to Skeletal muscle page as all other skeletal muscle info; still leaves no rationale for separate page of Muscle tissue imo - but it seems we agree to differ on this; thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

International Association for Plant Taxonomy GA Reassessment
International Association for Plant Taxonomy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Heraldry/tinctures
Template:Heraldry/tinctures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to Local Wikimania Event in San Francisco this Friday
Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 8 September 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cynareae stubs


A tag has been placed on Category:Cynareae stubs 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 13 May 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)