User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 3

Tyrannosauroidea GA Review
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)
 * Please be patient. I do careful reviews, and it can take me a while.  There are plenty of other articles not being reviewed by anyone at all.  You may pick one of those, if you like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Block on Wiktionary
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)
 * That is likely a shared IP address, then, so the vandalism was made by another user for the same IP address. The block is scheduled to end today anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Shmooshkums (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice
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) in my 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)
 * I may not be the best person to ask for advice with this particular article. I do have broad interests, but the rich history of India is a subject I know little about.  You may have more success asking someone at the Wikipedia:WikiProject India or one of its subprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history or Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's cool. I didn't mean to push Hinduism on you, sorry. I didn't think my questions would come off as needing Hinduism to know, so my bad. Thanks for pointing me in more appropriate direction, I appreciate it! -- Harish - 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooo, actually whilst I'm here - I have some advice I'd like to ask, and it's about referencing again, as well as images. Though, this shouldn't really require any knowledge of Hinduism. I tried looking into both, but here's the issues I couldn't wrap my head around; 1) There's a news piece done by CNN, but they've only put it up on their website as a video (direct cut of their telecast) so the news is what they've shown.... but I wasn't sure if that's referable or not, and how it should be done. Question 2) If an image is on the official website, is it possible to upload that image by calling it promo? Or some other way of getting around it...? I'm guessing the answer to the latter will be obvious, but thought you may know some tricks as an Admin =P -- Harish - 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of my work is in botany and taxonomy, which seldom involves video material, so I've never had to deal with that issue. Frankly, I don't know whom to ask either, since the people I collaborate with are working in related areas. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey man, just wanted to say Thank You. You led me down the right direction so I'm getting the article help I need. Appreciate it, bro. -- Harish - 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Respect towards other editors
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)
 * It it were well-researched, it would not make claims not in the source material, woiuld not be POV, and would be placed on the appropriate page. The information is misrepresented and inappropriate for the article.  Some of the sources you claim are from museums are in fact from travel sites about museums.  You need to show more respect for your sources and the information they present.  I do not have a personal viewpoint here, I am simply protecting the integrity of Wikpipedia from faulty scholarship of the sort found in Victorian treatises on heraldry.  Most of those treatises have since been debunked.  I have provided four solid arguments as nails in the coffin of your POV on the article's talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Unblock my Account
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)
 * Here is the response I gave you the last time you asked to be unblocked:
 * The extended block was only made after additional investigation and consultation with another sysop. We found that this was not an isolated incident on your part.  You had inserted copyrighted material from on-line source into several articles over an extended period covering several days, not a single article accidentally as a result of storm issues.  This means that you have not only violated copyright law, but that you have falsely claimed otherwise. You should know that information displayed on copyrighted websites is in fact copyrighted.  Your persisted claim that the problem was powerloss from a storm is flatly untrue.  You are blocked.   --EncycloPetey 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You were blocked because you violated copyright law repeatedly, and lied about it when confronted. Wiktionary takes a very dim view of repeated and deliberate copyright violation, and lying about it only made your case worse.  You will not be unblocked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly didn't know it was a copyright violation to right down the meaning of something. I'm sorry. Wouldn't you give me just one more chance? If I happen to violate copyright law again after I am now informed, you are completely justified in blocking me. The story about the storm was true and I was under the impression that that incident is what you were talking about. Obviously I was mistaken. It was not my intention to lie. You could put me on extended probation, send me warnings every day, warn others to watch me carefully. I just want another chance. Concerning the copyright violations, I now realize that that material was copyrighted and that I should have been more circumspect and check that. I did violate the copyright law indeed. I do not deny it. I admit it. I was wrong. Ignorantia juris non excusat. However, why would I deliberately violate copyright law knowing that I could be caught? I wouldn't and I swear it was unintentional. I have learned my lesson. It is crystal clear. Please!!!! I don't like begging. Andy85719 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then don't beg. You have your answer.  It may not be the one you like, but it is the only answer you're going to get.  This was not a one-time violation of copyright, it was the latest in a string of such violations.  You repeatedly pasted copyrighted material into Wiktionary over many days.  You must now live with the consequences of your actions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the blocking policy, even repeated offenders as you have unjustly labelled me only recieve a one month block. Yes it might have been repeated but I was only warned once and then blocked. Had I been promptly warned, I would have ceased. The lack of a warning made me believe that it was okay. Is this some type of vendetta? Are you trying to prove a point? If so, this is also a violation of the Wiktionary blocking policy. Just because you wield power doesn't mean you have to throw books at people. If you continue to repeatedly block me then I will be forced to appeal. I thought you would be civil and understanding. Instead I have found you unwielding and unreasonable. Why can't you just give me another chance? Maybe you have become drunk with your power. I don't know, but I'm sure that this shall resolved eventually. Andy85719 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken about what the blocking policy says. It clearly says that infinite blocks are given for plagiarism.  That is what happened.  It is not I who has violated the civility policy, it is you for dumping personal abuse here on my talk page.  If you continue to do so, I shall complain here about your behavior.  You have the answer to your question, so you do not need to reply.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Botany templates
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)
 * The template lists and links between on the various "top"-priority Plants pages that are considered "Core" topics in botany. It should only appear on those pages, not on pages about other topics or about the various genera, fossils, etc.  I recommend using categories for the purpose you have in mind, and making sure that the article mentions one of the key ideas in its text, with a link to that article.  Linking to the core topics is done with wikilinks.  The Botany template is designed to navigate among these core topics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. perhaps what I had in mind is not practical. I will consider using categories, though it seems a high-maintenance approach. Meanwhile, could you outline the principles governing the content of the botany template. What input does the average editor have to the selection of core topics? How many topics are allowed, etc. Regards, Plantsurfer (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The rating of topics is done informally through WP:PLANTS. The initial list was taken from the Assessment lists of WP:PLANTS.  Chenges should probably be discussed there, but the list should be relatively complete.  One principle was to limit each box of the template to a single line for the typical computer screen.  Thus, the template does not cover every possible topic (that would make the list too long), so it hits the "top" article for each major subject.  For example, it lists vascular tissue, so it does not need to list xylem or phloem.  The iea was to skim across the top-level of topics, from which other articles could be reached.  It is possible to create additional templates for more specific areas, such as the one for biological tissues Biological tissue.  Similar templates could be made for other specific areas within botany. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Can you update the main page? (asked of 3 people, who will be first?) Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was off-line, but it seems Royalbroil took care of promoting the next update.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox WP:ORGZ
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  Dao  ken  15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Do you have a list of where the old boxes are displayed so I correct them all? The new layout allows better display. I will recover the changes I have done (took me most of the day) and after that I will update all existing boxes, do you agree?  Dao  ken  15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, too many hours at the screen...I think I found the problem, I will put the new version now corrected and test it. I will then check for errors at all existing pages that having the old version, could be affected. Let you know in a few minutes if I corrected the glitch. Dao  ken  15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a code problem, it is solved now. It was good that you saw it. I will continue checking just in case but I think it is fixed. Thank you for the timely alert.  Dao  ken  16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Garlic Mustard
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)


 * Obligate self-fertilization (or even a situation where self-fertilization is the norm) will tend over time to lead to homozygosity and fixation of alleles in the offspring strains.  So, while an individual self-fertilizing plant may not have all its offspring genetically identical, in the long run species that continue to self-fertilize will end up homozygous for all loci and then will produce seed sets of all identical offspring.  While this process is happening, inbreeding depression will occur.  Once fixation has set in a particular breeding line, inbreeding depression can no longer happen, and at that point all the self-ferilized offspring will be identical.  This is of course not counting the occasional mutation, transposon, etc., but an individual that is homozygous at all loci will no longer produce genetic variety as a result of standard meiotic recombination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vascular plant
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)


 * That would be great. Note however that the Marchantiophyta page has the earliest occurrence info in the "fossil range" line of the taxobox.  So, you would need to make the change there.  But in yor edit, please preserve the mid-Devonian reference in the article text, since that is the date for the oldest liverwort macrofossil. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

 * Sorry, I thought that was the rule, as seen in other pages. Helladios (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

syn
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)
 * I have checked Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the scholarly standard for Ancient Greek. It does not give the meaning "similar" or "alike", and would not because those are adjectival senses, not prepositional.  The word συν is a preposition primarily meaning "with, together".  This is closer in meaning to the original "plus", which is why I reverted.  There is no indication there that the Ancient Greek root word ever meant "alike; the same".  Since the gloss in the page for synonym is for the Greek word, it should be given its Greek definition, not a gloss from an English dictionary.  See also  syn-  --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Monoicous
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)
 * No, I don't think the expert tage on Monoicous is necessary. The article still needs work, but not as badly as when the template was added.  As far as Plant cell not having the template, yes that is a mistake.  Nice catch! --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Plants
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;

In Kenrick & 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.
 * I took the "other vascular plants" to refer to other vascular plants he'd mentioned in that paragraph. Presumably the book of the same year, which I've not been able to access, states otherwise?

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)


 * It's not the definition of microphyll which the article mentioned above provides. I've summarised the points it makes here.


 * We are clearly talking about different Kenrick and Crane (1997)s. As I think I mentioned, I don't have ready access to the book, and was referring to the Kenrick and Crane 1997 that I referenced in the article (the nature paper).

"Microfossil": Tortilicaulis oflheus; "spores": Crassitate: all surfaces with grana.
 * The reference I included in the Tortilicaulis article mentions the spore morphology in several places. For example: in table 1,
 * In section 5, "In situ spores", "Exceptions are the few cases where morphologically distinct bifurcating sporangia are shown to possess the same spores as unbranched ones (e.g. Tortilicaulis ofieus; Edwards et al., 1994).


 * In section 6 (p170):

although in a few cases the same genus has been recorded in different types of sporangia [e.g. Aneurospora in Cooksonia and Salopella; miospores with microgranulate ornament in Tortilicaulis (Plate II, 7, 8)


 * Their spores are further referenced in the abstract of Gerrinne et al. (this time with emphasis)

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 am also more than happy to provide you with copies of any articles you don't have access to; do let me know and I can e-mail you PDFs.


 * All the best, Verisimilus  T  11:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Organism, Ecosystem and Biome
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)

Entoloma sinuatum update
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)

Bad interwiki on monoicous
This edit 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 monoica is monoecious not monoicous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, right, but bot will continue to add the wrong interwikis, de: has only one page for both notion and that page link to es: page. Monoecious is a redirect to Plant sexuality so es: article can't be linked here since es:Sexualidad vegetal exists.  Perhaps you should add a &#123;{nobots}} to monoicous but this template can't disable a specific bot operation like interwiki. Phe-bot (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mosses
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)
 * Thank you for your concern. As a specialist in bryophyte higher-level classification, I think I am quite capable of understanding the nomenclature.  Please be aware that there are many different meanings of "Bryopsida".  The one being used on the German Wikipedia is not the same as the one being used here on the English Wikipedia (or most other Wikipedias). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguments like I am a specialist in bryophyte higher-level classification should never be used in Wikipedia. --Etxrge (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Argument? What "argument" are you referring to?  As a response to comments with phrases like "the side of truth" and with presumptive cautioning, I think I made a very fair response.  You presumed to tell me "there is a lot of confusion", and I explained my background and that I am aware of the confusion. I suggest that, in future, you not respond to statements of fact by making pronouncements that they "should never be used on Wikipedia". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scadoxus
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&mdash; 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)
 * Your bot is observant, but the "warning" message is not necessary. I am in the middle of splitting the Scadoxus puniceus article, pulling out the information about the genus from the species page where it was put mistakenly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vermiform
A proposed 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  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  to the top of Vermiform. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but why are you telling me this? Shouldn't you send this to the people who wrote the article?  Also, shouldn't you consider Transwiki to Wiktionary before outright deleting it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The dictionary content of the article is already in Wiktionary, and you were an editor of that article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

plant stubs
Myristicaceae-stub all done. :-) Rkitko (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Last set: The genus Schefflera is currently in Category:Apiales stubs, but should be stubbed as Araliaceae-stub. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and on an unrelated note: why is Sarraceniaceae still a stub!? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Schefflera are being sorted right now. As for Sarraceniaceae, I figure it's the same reason why Stylidiaceae, Droseraceae, and Lentibulariaceae are rather small: there's really not that much to discuss about the family that's not genus-specific. It's on my agenda to eventually expand those... There are precious few of us working on the carnivorous plants - I'm trying to get us a good groundwork established by finishing off stubs for all the Utricularia, User:Mgiganteus1 works mostly with Nepenthes, and unfortunately school and other things have kept User:NoahElhardt from contributing much. After I finish the stubs on the Utrics, I figure I might start on Pinguicula and then move on to Drosera. Lots of work! I'll make a note, though, to keep an eye out for info that can be added at the family level. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

my watchlist
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)

villous vs villus
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)
 * The diffeence is that villus is the Latin spelling, but villous is the English spelling. The -us / -ous difference in adjectives is a pretty standard difference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be a good time to make the word glabrus then? -- carol (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That spelling would only be used as the second part of a scientific name (in Latin) or a Latin diagnosis, since that is a Latinate spelling. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Prokaryotic cell
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)

Signature
Thanks - an error, I was pasting and got confused.Osborne (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

tamil wiktionary
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)

Gronophyllum
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)


 * My inclination based on the link you provided (especially since it's in the Kew Bulletin) is to go with the new definition of a broader Hydriastele. Yes, referencing the original publication of any name is always good for an article. It's the one case where adding a reference gets an exception to the usual rule of "you have to have seen the publication yourself."  We want to provide the useful information of where a name or combination was first published.  This is usually added as a reference footnote in the taxobox by the authority.  Sorry, I don't know a good interpreter anywhere in Florida or neighboring states.  The particular example you've provided is:
 * (Original author) New combination author, place of publication. Date Lectotype (with similar information on publication, etc.)
 * You needn't include the lectotpye information as part of the cite itself, but I'm not sure how (or where) best to include the information in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Novels Collaboration of the Month
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)

history
I'm not sure you have completely restored Posidonia, would you mind having another look. cygnis insignis 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had missed seeing the most recent revision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Liverwort
That is not correct. Liverwort points to a separate disambiguation page. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I guess that has changed since the last time I looked at it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

a new article for DYK
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)

Redirects with PLANTS banners
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)
 * I don't mind at all. I haven't had time to deal with the list (busy on Wiktionary and offline), so I'm glad to hear you went ahead and tackled the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All done with the list! I've been busy, too. Just started a new job and haven't had much time to dedicate here, but I wanted to finish that one. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary block
please unblock ip 71 i mean on wiktionary. --71.254.97.20 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? The entire edit history for that IP consists of very strange entry requests. Semper noted that your edits were disruptive.  Why not take this time while blocked to read about Wiktionary and how to contribute.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CAT:SHORTFIX
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)


 * Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DOI bot edits
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)

Warning regarding references
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)


 * Please be civil. You are duplicating templates unnecessarily.  There is not rule stating that stubs must have additional templates reiterating what the stub template indicates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit of 2007 August 14
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)

Algae
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)
 * Np:) Because spell checker want to capitalize it. But since it name of a spice, Durvillaea antarctica, I reject that change. Here is an actual bug description and discussion.  TestPilot  02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot error
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)

Andreaceae
Thanks for that. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More moss gathering
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)


 * The happy band of wiki-mosses is joined by Hygrohypnum styriacum, Didymodon mamillosus & Marsupella arctica, who seek advice regarding their parentage. Ben MacDuiTalk / Walk  08:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to welcome: Icy Rock-moss, Tetrodontium brownianum and Anastrepta orcadensis to the throng. Ben MacDuiTalk / Walk  08:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does moss grow?
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)

Cooperative venture
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)


 * All that you added to the text was that the class was "ancient". First, this is true of all classes of plants.  Second, "ancient" means many different things in different contexts.  The word thus added no useful information or context to the page.  You have therefore not achieved your stated goal of adding context.


 * Your subsequent addition of "primordial" is (if anything) a worse addition. These were not the first plants  In fact, the Equisetopsida first appeared more than 100 million years after the earliest evidence of land plants, so they cannot qualify as "primordial".  --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed to see that you have again reverted an edit I made. I would also note the complete absence of pursuit of compromise in your response above.  It is, rather, a brief lecture on failings.  I again refer you to WP:Etiquette, particularly given the additional implied weight of your actions carried as administrator.


 * While I do appreciate that you added material addressing the origin of Equisetopsida, this is not the same as developing context in the introduction as I described. "Ancient" may be an imperfect word, but it's better than nothing.  I have made efforts to adapt to your concerns.  I look forward to the same from you. ENeville (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly how does one compromise over the addition/removal of a single word in an article? Your responses do not permit any option for compromise, because they are merely lectures and chiding.  You have yet to express at all what content it is that you are trying to convey with the addition of the one word you are concerned about.  You have said you want to "add context", but what context exactly is missing from the article?  You have not told me.  And as I stated before, I disagree that adding that single word is better than nothing.  Consider that not having a weasel word is, by convention, better than having it.  Adding words is not always an improvement.


 * Now, contrary to your claims, you did not make efforts to adapt to my concerns. Thus far, you have not even acknowledged an undersatnding of my concerns. You have simply chided me for reverting the single-word additions that you made, and then proceeded to make the exact same edit as the first time. You are not making any effort to collaborate, but are simply pushing a particular vague word.  I refer you now to the very same documents you have linked to in your comments above: "If your material is reverted, don't take it personally. Not every fact, detail, and nuance belongs in an encyclopedia."  This is particularly true for reverts when a single word is added that conveys no additional context.


 * So, why is it that saying the Equisetopsida are "ancient" is so important to you? The Fish are not labelled as "ancient", neither are the Lizards or even the Vertebrates.  The Mollusca and Animals are not described as "ancient".  So, what makes the Equisetopsida ancient that doesn't make these other groups ancient? Consider also that Ancient Rome and Mesopotamia are described as "ancient".  Do you maintain that the Equisetopsida are of an age comparable with the cultures of Rome and Mesopotamia? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You raise many points, some with which I might take issue. In an effort to find resolution, though, I will endeavor to focus on the primary issues.  As I said initially, I think that it's valuable to reference the evolutionary context in the introduction.  Doing so with one word would be ideal, compositionally.  As you have concerns with my word choice, please do offer alternatives. ENeville (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you what to use just one word to say what? I cannot offer alternatives if you cannot express to me what it is you are trying to say.  I asked you above what you wish to say, but you have not answered that question.  You say you want to "reference the evolutionary context", but what information is that?  There are many, many aspects of evolution, including time and place of origin, closest relatives, primitive character states, synapomorphies and innovations for the group, morphological and ecological divergance from related clades, gradual versus punctuated evolution, hypothesized advantages over similar taxa, and hyoptheses about the environmental conditions that led to the clade's diversification.  I do not know how to communiate all that information with a single word, nor have you told me what aspect of the group's evolution you wish to communicate. Please see the discussion at Talk:Equisetopsida, and please say what information you think is needed in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cycad
Well spotted! Now fixed. Smith609  Talk  18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

HI AGAIN
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)


 * You and your friends had already been warned that Wiktionary was not a chatrooom, but you and your friends proceded to use it as one.  You were also warned about personal attacks, editing userpages belonging to other people, etc.  You were warned that this behavior would result in a block, and it did. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

yo
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)
 * Yes, I'm an admin. I should have time over the next couple of weeks to work on the biceps article and the Equisetopsida article, but there's always the chance something could come up unexpectedly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

trouble maker
Here. -- carol (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I see any trouble. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ether lipids
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)


 * I'm not sure, as I remember many lipases are pretty non-specific. This article talks about the marine archaea as an "unexpected source of primary productivity", but doesn't address this question directly. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hornworts
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)

Archaea
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 Featured article candidates/Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that was the rule? One process at a time? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a rule I've ever seen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked and I can't see that rule either, I suspect I might have been thinking of peer-review. Please renominate this as a GA if you think that would be best. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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 con migo ) 20:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added that information to the criteria page so that it will be easier to find. The information was only placed in the middle of a heterogeneous paragraph on the instructions template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maria. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, that section on evolution does depend a bit on the stuff that comes after it. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But FYI metabolism is usually counted as part of biochemistry, not as part of cell biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've added you as a co-nominator. My number of edits to the article are ridiculously inflated since I tend it edit it in tiny pieces! Tim Vickers (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC and other impressive initials
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)


 * Carol, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What article do you mean?  The discussion you've pointed ne to mentions no article by name that has been deleted, and I have almost never tagged anything for deletion.  I think there may have been one several months ago, but that can't be the one you mean. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Matricaria‎ recutita. -- carol (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I've never edited that page, and haven't even participated in the WP:PLANTS discussion about it. So, what leads you to think I had any involvement with this article?  As far as I can tell, all I ever did was to assess the article  for WP:PLANTS as being off to a good start and being of moderate importance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In my watch list it said you flagged it for deletion. That article which was flagged has since been deleted as well as the talk page and the history of you flagging it for deletion.  The only proof I have of this is that edits to articles I have been working on by you are important enough for me to remember.  At this point, it is up to you to believe in the integrity of this proof or not. -- carol (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, this thread is becoming illogically nested.


 * Huh? I asked you what article it was that had been tagged for deletion.  You said Matricaria‎ recutita. Now you are saying it was another article that you meant, and this so far unnamed article was deleted.  I'm sorry, but if you can't tell me the name of that article, I have no way of knowing whether you are correct, or even what you are talking about.  If you can tell me the name of the article you are upset over, then please do. Otherwise, this conversation is just wasting my time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When I started, there were two pages involved: the article German Chamomile and a redirection page Matricaria recutita. I don't link to those now because the articles I was working on do not exist in those namespaces now.  I made an article out of what had been a redirection page for Matricaria recutita, as typical of most of my stub articles, there were more references than text, but that was expanded more than several of my stub class articles because I had intended to convert German Chamomile into a food and herb article.  The article was reverted back to being a redirection page.  I re-edited it back into being an article with not as many copyright violations as the redirection page pointed at.  The musical comedy people with the claims of copyright violation and plagiarism had me blocked for replacing the text after the reversion (I did not revert via 'undo' ever, btw).  While I was blocked and the article buried in the history and the page looking like a redirection page -- it was flagged for deletion and deleted and the article which is mostly about the food and tea and history called German Chamomile (in my opinion) was moved into that namespace. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants is where I mentioned that I looked at the history of the redirection page before I requested that it be deleted -- due to the suffering I experienced while watching my plant article be deleted so a herbal tea article could take its place in the species namespace.  I like musical comedy, I just prefer to see it in a real theatre and if I am to be a participant in it, I would prefer to be paid for this and agree to it. -- carol (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you paste a taxonomy box onto a food article and put some Scientific plantinii on it, it becomes a plant article here. -- carol (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a lengthy story, but I still insist I had no part in any of it. If you can find any edit I made pertaining to the issue in question, please post a link to it.  I maintain that I was not involved and would appreciate it if you didn't continue bothering me with a tale that has no relevance to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You prefer to think that your name doesn't stand out to me in a watch list edit summary then? Also, do you remember the first exchange we had? -- carol (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: My deletion of trivia sections
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)

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)

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)

List of herbaria
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)

WP:FORK
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)

List of Lepidoptera that feed on Senecio
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)

Re: Prokaryotic systematics
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)
 * Cheers. I would have had a nervous breakdown if your answer was otherwise. I will ping you once I have done a decent entry on the Prokaryotic systematics.  Wiki San Roze  †αLҝ 17:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion Jorgensen
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)

Trouble with lichen
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)

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)

Re:Fungus
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)

Mutualism
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)


 * Here's one that deals with sulfate reducers, it is the same idea. (link). Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've added that review and a single sentence to the "interactions" section. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaf
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)
 * And in your opinion why isn't adding an argument for intelligent design "balancing the information" when the stament written there is opposed to the this argument and is not referenced?--Tarquilu (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA
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)

OK
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)

Thanks!

 * Congratulations on a well-earned star. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Terry Ananny Canadian Painter and UNICEF Artist
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)
 * The discussion outcome has opinions both for keeping and deleting the article, but the closer decided the delete arguments were stronger. The evidence does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Algae

 * Sorry about that. Thanks for double checking my edits.   Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

E. Coli
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
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)
 * I just noticed the folks at TFA pulled off the image for Palpatine, so we will only have three men's heads. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we weren't to use a man's head, we'd have to go with either an image like (Image:Stromatolites in Sharkbay.jpg, from microbial mat) or one about the fruit in yours. Rudget   ( logs ) 11:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oh that's right. Yes, it is a bit of problem. I don't mind replacing it to something else. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of the articles not pertaining to men, Magnoliidae's image is probably the most interesting. Rudget   ( logs ) 11:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now updated with nutmeg image. Apologies for the slight mixup of hooks earlier on. Rudget   ( logs ) 11:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Magnoliidae
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)
 * That really depends on how you look at it. Several species produce safrole, which is the chemical precursor used in the reactions that make ecstasy, so the drug does not come ready-made from the plant.  However, you also would not find ready-made nutmeg on a plant either; there is physical processing involved.  The seed must be removed and ground to make powder.  You could change the hook to say "species that are sources of...", which is a bit more vague and therefore has (ironically) the advantage of being more precise, if you like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. How about this – we mention ecstacy only, rewording the hook as you suggested, and we can replace the image with this. I personally think it will be more attention-drawing, but I can understand if you have objections. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are offline. I've tweaked the hook. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Biochemicals
I've done one, and will get around to the others. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles created, Demethylrodiasine didn't have much literature, so I redirected this to the parent compound. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK update
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)

"G. species" disambiguation pages
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 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)
 * I have not commented on the creation of redirects like "G. species" or "G species". I am only persuading you not to redirect Cryptanthus maritimus to Cryptanthus, or to redirect Bolboschoenus maritimus to List of Canadian plants by genus B.  Each species should have its own article, and it should not be presumed that any species will ever be given full treatment within a List. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Speer,


 * I understand your concern about redirecting species names to their genus, however such practice is required for the usefulness of "G. species" disambiguation pages. As you stated on my talk page, links on disambiguation pages should not be piped.  The only way for the entries to link to something appropriate without piping is to turn them into redirects.  Creating such redirects does not suggest that full articles will eventually be created for them; the redirects are useful on their own, particularly to the disambiguation pages previously discussed.


 * Neelix (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Speer,


 * You stated that the links on the disambiguation pages do not need to be blue. If they are red, however, they serve no purpose and are not verifiable.  When a user clicks on Cryptanthus maritimus and is redirected to Cryptanthus, they are provided with information about the broader group of organisms which includes the one they are looking for.  If the link is red, they are not provided with any information at all.


 * You have also stated that blue links create 'self-redirects'. I think I have a solution to this difficulty.  The links to the redirects are necessary on the disambiguation pages, but they are not necessary on the articles to which they link.  Why not simply remove the link brackets from around the species names on those pages?  That way, the redirects serve their purpose on the disambiguation pages without the effect of 'self-redirects' on the articles to which they link.  How would you feel about this arrangement?


 * Neelix (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Speer,


 * My only reason for suggesting the de-linking on the article lists because you identified 'self-redirects' as problematic. I do not see that they are problematic, but rather helpful for the reasons I have already stated.  I have not suggested that we make a "whole system of changes."  I completely agree with your statement that the "links and articles are what build an encyclopedia."  I do not agree that "redirects should only exist as a courtesy," but regardless of this fact, the redirects we are discussing are much more helpful than they are problematic.  That a user may assume that there is a separate article specific to the species before he or she actually clicks the link seems like a dubious reason for objecting to the creation of these redirects.


 * In response to your question about my eventualist user box, I certainly stand by it, especially in this case. Creating these redirects does not prevent their respective articles from developing.  Quite the opposite; they direct more users to a broader article, which is the best starting place for any user who wishes to develop an article on the specific species.  A redirect to a genus is a stepping-stone to a stub in the same way that a stub is a stepping stone to a start-class article.  In this way, the functionality of Wikipedia can be developed in anticipation of future articles.


 * I hope we will be able to come to a consensus on this subject. I believe "G. species" disambiguation pages to be of great value to the project, but they are not nearly as useful without the redirects we have discussed.


 * Happy editing,


 * Neelix (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Speer,


 * I was not aware of any users' objections but your own. The only users who have contacted me on this issue have agreed with the necessity of these redirects, as discussed when "G. species" disambiguation pages were first coming into existence.  If this discussion concerns other users, then we should open it to a more public discussion.  How would you feel if we moved the discussion to the WikiProject Biology talk page?


 * Neelix (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Speer,


 * The discussion you mentioned about "redirects of the type A rubrum pointing to a disambguation page" was not the discussion I was referring to when I mentioned that users have agreed with the necessity of the redirects. I was referring to the original deletion discussions for "G. species" disambiguation pages, in which the consensus was that those "G. species" disambiguation pages that consisted entirely of entries that used redirects were justified as they stood.  But this is besides the point.  Now that justification of the redirects used by those "G. species" disambiguation pages has come under question specifically, a new discussion is warranted.  I agree with your assessment that the WikiProject Tree of life talk page is a more suitable location for the discussion.  I will begin a discussion there and post notices on other associated talk pages as you have suggested.


 * Neelix (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Amelanchier
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)

The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling
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)


 * What I think of the length is immaterial. A large number of editors created that summary and shortened it as a result of the WikiProject Novels COTM. Deleting the entire section from a page because you think it too long is never a valid reason for deletion. You are also incorrect that a plot summary "serves no useful purpose" when the article is about the book being summarized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may not agree, but Wikipedia said 40k is too long. A plot summary has a point, but that one was much too detailed, and it would be more productive to start from scratch, irrespective of whether people have been working on that version. BillMasen (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken about article length. There is no cutoff, and there are Featured Articles that are more than 80K.  The 40K "limit" applies to the length of individual editable sections, not the entire article, and is a courtesy to those wishing to edit sections.  Sections longer than 40K cause diting problems for users with slower connections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawayo Takata
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)

Re:Makemake pronounciation
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 planet  plutoid space 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)

Hippocratic Oath for Scientists
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)

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)

You have mail
I have sent you a short email; a reply would be much appreciated. Thanks! Knepflerle (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at your Wiktionary talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have further email (as I cannot reply in any other way). Knepflerle (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you have not understood that WT:AGF is two-sided. Please read the policy again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi EncycloPetey! It is nice to meet you! --CupPup (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)CupPup

Dinner time...
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)
 * What the ODEE is saying with the asterisk is that the word is a "guess" that is completely unattested in texts. If you examine the RAE (the equivalent dictionary for Spanish), they derive desayunar from Spanish ayunar, and not from a Latin root.  The fact is that no Latin word *disieiuno has ever been found in any Latin texts, so to include that information in the etymology would be to add pure speculation that isn't accepted in most dictionaries.  The OED itself doesn't seem to have this questionable etymology, and other major English language dictionaries don't either.  If you add back some sort of etymology, you should make it clear that even the experts admit it is guesswork with no data to support it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * Many thanks for this: perhaps you need to do the same to Breakfast? Nick Michael (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Liverworts
Ah, that explains it – I should have checked the edit history. Thanks. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)S

Te Ara links
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)
 * I support Gadfium's view here. Links to Te Ara are highly beneficial to Wikipedia. I have also restored some of the links. Kahuroa (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also support Gadfium and Kahuroa, and have restored a link. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a link farm. We do not add links to other sites unless there is a strong reason to do so.  Linking from Dicksonia squarrosa‎ to an encyclopedic article about the pteridophytes of New Zealand is an inappropriate link.  So is linking the same NZ article from our article about the genus Lycopodiella.  There should be a specificity and a significant quantity of useful information at the external site directly relevant to the article from which it is linked.  Please examine WP policy on external links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AFC suggestion relating to Orchids.
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&#39;t mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting trick
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)
 * Hmmm, I don't recall that. Perhaps it was someone else who showed you this trick? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vascular bundles
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)

Flowering plant nomenclature
''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)''
 * I guess the first issue is whether we are using a rank-based name, or a clade name. If a rank-based name, then we follow the ICBN, and the citation is
 * Angiospermae Lindl.
 * If a clade name, then we might follow the draft PhyloCode, in which case the citation is apparently
 * Angiospermae Lindley [P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue]
 * i.e. square brackets not parentheses.
 * I agree that the article is essentially about the clade, but using the PhyloCode name is a bit problematic considering the PhyloCode is still a draft, it has not yet gone into operation, and therefore Cantino's names are not validly published under it. "The starting date of the PhyloCode will be scheduled to coincide with the publication of a volume that will provide phylogenetic definitions for many widely used clade names and the names of many large clades (see below). Names that were provided with published phylogenetic definitions before that date will not be considered to be established under the PhyloCode." Cantino is fairly clear that he is working "towards a phylogenetic nomenclature", rather than actually establishing a nomenclature.
 * On top of all that, the PhyloCode is explicit about all its names being rankless, so if we're using a rank name, it is incorrect to give it divisio rank.
 * Since you've indicated that you want to use Cantino's name, I've corrected the citation in accordance with that. But I'll reiterate that I do not endorse premature adoption of the PhyloCode.
 * Hesperian 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the vast majority of plant names, I agree with you. The problem is (in part) that the Wikipedia articles for the highest-level groups ("ferns + horsetails", "magnoliids", "asterids", etc.) are core navigational articles and there is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes these clades in anything resembling the modern phylogenetic sense.  For these high-order groups (about a dozen), I propose that the Cantino paper descriptions be used even if they are not "validly published", because the cited reference will present the problem and refer the reader to cladograms and taxonomic literature of much greater benefit.  Again, I don't propose trying to fully incorporate PhyloCode principles, and there are  anumber of clades named in the Cantino paper that I don't think deserve articles.  However, for the few high-level groups that have heretofore been unofficially named in phylogenetic studies, and for which we have key articles, the Cantino definitions and reference should be used, IMO. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Spammy DYK update/housekeeping-type notice
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 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)

Xerminaren et al
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)
 * Yes, and they should have gone there. I'll clean them up and see if I can figure out what went wrong. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

wiktionary block
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)
 * Let's look at what happened together: You began undoing several edits to pages you seem to have claimed ownership over; then proceded to misuse templates for purposes they were not intended for, and quickly and silently reverted correction made before ever asking a single question of any user as to why your edits were being corrected. You were given a 15 minute block, at what point you rushed here to hurl insults and lodge complaints.  I suggest you learn a little more patience in addition to learning Wiktionary policy.  And also in future, please (1) do not use profanity on user talk pages, and (2) do not take issues from one wiki to another. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, you blocked me for an hour, not 15 minutes, and since you never actually said anything, for all I knew it was indefinite. I waited 15 minutes before trying to correct the situation.
 * Secondly, since you blocked any ability for me seek redress at wiktionary, of course I had to go elsewhere. The wiktionary admin who unblocked me seemed to think that was entirely appropriate, and that the fault lay with your use of the block in place of discussion. (I know, I made it impossible for you to type in my talk page, so you had no choice but to block me.)
 * Show me where I "quickly and silently reverted correction". You only gave one reason for the block, and that was that I (obviously out of ignorance) misused a template for a synonym rather than an alternate spelling.
 * I've since received an email from another editor who had a similar problem with you, and simply quit contributing to wiktionary altogether, rather than fight with you over it. kwami (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is a Wiktionary issue, let's keep the discussion there, please. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, you blocked him, chief. He couldn't. Jtrainor (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, he just posted a duplicate message on my talk page there. He can. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is juicy. Let's discuss it here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Novels Collaboration of the Month
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)

Version 0.7 reviewing
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)

Monoicous
Thanks I've left a comment in each of the wikis this time. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Are algae protist or plants?
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)

Mutisia
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 (this also mentions Mutisia decurrens) and Mutisia arachnoidea, Mutisia breviflora & Mutisia versicolor (all on.

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)
 * The list of Mutisia species given in the article is only a list of those species articles that have been created. Those species articles were all created by bot from a list of endangered species, so only the world's rarest species are currently listed.  You therefore have lots of room for expanding and improving the article with your efforts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agapanthus praecox
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)

Abuse of admin power by User:Philip Baird Shearer
This item has had further comments added to it (which need answering) but it's languishing in the archive section here:

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496 (item 43)

Could you un-archive it?

Many thanks Chillysnow (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

latus, lata, latum by User:teacoolish
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.

Username: Sven70, IP address: 219.70.20.52, Block ID: 38095
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)