User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 6a

Joachim Christian Timm
I've put a translation of sorts at Joachim Christian Timm. I believe that I understand the German except for some difficult historic terminology, which a German colleague doesn't entirely understand either. The German original article is a bit defective in this respect: it seems to have copied terms from sources without any attempt to gloss or wikilink them (except one term which is linked to a disambiguation page). The format of the citations is not very good either, so my attempted improvements could be incorrect.

I haven't done any wikilinking: can I leave that to you? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure; I've already done the opening paragraph, and will take care of the others later today. I wonder if articles translated from other Wikipedias are eligible for WP:DYK? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Got to it sooner than I expected. Thanks very much for taking this on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mochtar Lubis (and 4 others)
I have addressed your concerns at the nomination page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
undefined — Bill william compton Talk   04:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed...
I'd started reviewing at Talk:Carl Linnaeus/GA1. Another editor is helping. It'd be great to get this to FA and get on the mainpage....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
undefined — Bill william compton Talk   18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--Sodabottle (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK on Dougie dance
FYI, pls see Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Sandy Georgia (Talk)

German fern article
Yes, after I'd messed about fixng the link, I realized that the German version was much less good than ours. I didn't remove the template myself, preferring to alert the editor who added it: see User_talk:Ushakaron. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure whether you'd seen the article, or were simply fixing the link. You might have noticed that the editor who placed the template is actively working on fossil "pteridophyte" articles such as Ibyka and Sphenophyllales, and could probably use a bit of guidance as the primary source for additions seems to be the old web pages I wrote for UCMP. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox needed
You might like to look at this page: Splachnum sphaericum, which at the least needs a taxobox, but may need more... Peter coxhead (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Stemonitis has now supplied a taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My ISP balked on me, and I've been almost entirely off-line for about a month while I got new service. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed you hadn't been around; welcome back! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back, Petey. Your Carl Linnaeus GA nomination has almost passed, but just needs referencing for the section on Linnean taxonomy. Any citations you can provide would be most helpful; it would be a shame for the nomination to fail at this late stage. I am doing what I can, but I'm struggling on this one last section. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'll take a look, and should be able to provide some referencing.  It may take a few days though, since we are nearing the end of a term, so I'm busy during the week. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary Latin request
Hi EncycloPetey. Would you give a look here when you get a chance? Thanks! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Limnocharitaceae
See my comment at User_talk:Rkitko. Good luck with your efforts – I found the Asparagales quite enough (and I didn't double-check all the authorities). Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Flowers
Indeed many leaves have no flowers, but all flowers are reproductive organs of plants not plants or plant groups in themselves.Osborne 09:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree with your comment on my "Talk" - some words do have more than one meaning! A example is "chronic" which means ong lasting or lingering. However many use it to mean very bad. I fear doctors and their patients misunderstand each other when this is used. However to use the word "flower" to refer to the whole plant is rather casual for Wikipedia - in my openion! Osborne 10:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC) By the way - in Wikiedia should I reply to your note/comment on my talk or yours? How best to do it?Osborne 10:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Asexual Reproduction in Liverworts, i.e. Marchantiophyta
Good morning EncycloPetey, I noticed that you reverted my contribution to Marchantiophyta. Since the 'bandwidth' of edit comments is too narrow for detailed discussion, I hope you don't mind if we talk here?

The reason for wishing to contribute to what is quite a technical article is that many people's first (and very possibly only) contact with the liverworts is likely to be a biology lesson or assignment, and that in turn is very likely to mention differing forms of reproduction. The article currently has detailed coverage of the sexual life-cycle but not of the asexual; and the asexual seems to be important, both as a topic in biology and of course in the actual survival of liverworts, and it shouldn't be hard to show that the topic is notable enough for a new section.

Would it be all right with you if I put a revised draft up for your consideration? It could be a) here; b) on the Marchantiophyta talk page; or c) in the article. If you let me know what you'd like, I'll take it from there. With my best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be best to first work out here what kind of information might be appropriate to include, how it should be sourced, and where it should be placed. Working on it in the article directly would be a bad idea, since Marchantiophyta is a GA-rated article and the sources that you are using are unsuitable for a GA.  The article you used as your primary reference was a self-published set of course notes that (a) contained errors, (b) was intended as only a general survey of the whole plant kingdom, and (c) was itself almost entirely unsourced despite making some extraordinary claims.  Such sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia.


 * Note also that just because a biology lesson might include Marchantia or Lunularia as an example of asexual reproduction with gemmae does not mean that the topic is important to liverworts as a whole. These forms of asexual reproduction are extremely rare among liverworts.  Yes, Marchantia is often used in biology courses as a liverwort example, but it is highly atypical.  Using it as an example of a liverwort is like using a platypus as a "typical" mammal.  Wikipedia should not cater to this bias, and in fact Wikipedia policy is to present a non-biased article.  If information applies only to Marchantia, then it should be presented at the article on Marchantia.  If it applies to the family Marchantiaceae, then it should be presented there.


 * It is also important to consider the view of Wikipedia as a whole. Will the asexual reproduction information be repeated on multiple pages?  Which articles should spend time discussing it.  Probably the best place for it is (1) on the Bryophyte article, (2) on the general article about Vegetative reproduction, and (3) the gemmae information at Gemma (botany).  That alone will require repeating a lot of the information three times, and thus three places that will need to be kept updated.  Spreading the information to more articles should be done via short statements with links directing to the appropriate location, rather than creating whole sections about this topic in multiple locations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GA-rated, aha... Thank you for your detailed and informative reply. Obviously, yes, we don't want to repeat stuff too much. One point perhaps worth making here is that since the Liverworts/Marchantiophytes are now considered basically separate from 'Bryophytes' we possibly shouldn't worry too much about what happens there. On reflection I think that Gemma and Veg repro are the main places for this, so we arguably don't need a whole section, but there should certainly be links to something asexual from Marchantiophyta. Will you put in a link or two, or would you like me to do that very briefly? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can provide a well-sourced statement or two, that might fit at the end of the Life cycle section. I've been meaning to thoroughly expand Moss, Marchantiophyta, and Bryophyte with a lot more text and many more references for some time, but have other things occupying my time for now.  Bryophyte is still a meaningful article, even if it is not a formal taxon.  The mosses and liverworts still share many aspects of their biology, life cycle, habitat, and so on by virtue of lacking vascular tissue.  The article should eventually cover these shared aspects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

References formatting
Thank you, EncycloPetey! The formatting on Riella was ideal for my purposes. I'm quite looking forward to contributing to the botanical efforts here. Fascinoma (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Old Testament navigation templates
Saw your post on. Should the five navigation templates be referred to collectively as a pentateuch? --GraemeL (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for for sharing the gift of laughter! --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to run into you
at Twelve Prophets of Aleijadinho. Years ago I made a pilgrimage (of the non-religious kind) to visit this site and hope to post some photos shortly. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * However I see that you have more pictures and are still working away there so I shall retire for a bit, let you get your work done, then check back in. Carptrash (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My best book on Aleijadinho, is, unfortunately, also in Portuguese. Great pictures of his work, but..... Still, we soldier on, and I will be trailing behind you, doing what I can. There is already one word that I thought "oh, lost in translation - we can do better than this", but now I've forgotten it, but it will not get away. Carptrash (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I too come and go on the WWW, my wife and I share our connection on-line, and after several years of ....... negotiations, wikipedia came in second. Meanwhile I just discovered  this - and reading page 1 leads me to believe that there will be some interesting stuff here.  Carptrash (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised this morning to note that someone else discovered one of my pictures of a prophet and posted it here. Life is full of surprises and mostly that is a good thing. Carptrash (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your help with the Fruit and Tree categories deletion problem! Last night it seemed so unlikely that this problem could be resolved that I was considering just putting "retired" on my user page as one final act for this morning. Now there's another person joining in as well. Things are looking up. I hope that a portrait of a handsome small mammal is something that you find appealing.

Nadiatalent (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 

Dispute resolution noticeboard: Biblical cosmology
I've lodged a notice at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard over my editing dispute with CarlAude at Biblical cosmology. Since you made a comment on the Talk page of the article I thought I should inform you, but I don't know if you want to get involved. (I'm simply asking for a mediator, but you might have some useful input - it's always dangerous to have just two parties involved, a third would be welcome). PiCo (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Twelve Prophets of Aleijadinho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for djed article
Please see my response to your comment on the DYK nom of djed.Regstuff (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see I have added to the article and the DYK nom of djed.Regstuff (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Habbakuk
Hello. I noticed that you were looking for Jewish references for this book, and that you had not been given any traditional Jewish sources. Perhaps you could get ahold of the Judaica Press version of the Twelve (Mikraot Gedolot with translation), although I don't have a copy (I prefer to stay away from translations altogether) so I do not know if it has a separate introduction. Matters where Habbakuk is known to traditional Jews include the fact that the prayer in it is read of the second day of Shavuot (Pentacost) (outside Israel) and the famous statement in Talmud Bavli Makot 24a, that ends, "Hababkuk came and stood them on one, "And a righteous man shall live by his faith".". (I.e., the he found a single principle to enable one to keep all 613 commandments, q.v.).

Good luck!Mzk1 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Book of Habakkuk or Habakkuk? I am currently revising both.


 * I tried looking for the Judaica Press Mikraot Gedolot with translation, but could not find it. If you have the publication details, I'd be very appreciative.  Most of the books and articles listed in the Reference of the article on the Book of Habakkuk I now own in my personal library, and I am trying to expand that collection even further.  I did recently (yesterday!) receieve a copy of The Jewish Study Bible by the Jewish Publication Society, which includes introductions to Habakkuk, the Twelve, and the Nevi'im.  Information from these essays will be included and cited.  I also have been using the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia in completing my revisions.


 * I am currently doing a thoroguh expansion and revision of the Habakkuk article off-line. Normally I would work on-line in the revision, but this time there is so much material to be sorted through and added that it would become very messy to do it within Wikipedia.  However, I hope to have the revised text and citations in before this weekend (God willing).


 * If you can provide fuller text and complete citations for the statements you've made at the end of your post above, then I will gladly include them in the articles where appropriate. My own knowledge of Hebrew traditions concerning Biblical figures is quite limited, and the same can be said for my knowledge of Catholic and Orthodox traditions, so I have had to do quite of lot of exploratory searching of the literature.


 * Likewise, I have had a singularly difficult time locating details concerning the traditional tomb sites in Israel. The Habakkuk article didn't even mention either of these sites a week ago, and internet searches in English have not been fruitful. IF you are capable of searching out information in Hebrew, particular as regards the earliest mention of these traditions, date and details of the construction of the buildings at the sites, and information about possible care, oversight, and preservation by some Israeli government agency, then that would be a welcome addition to the text.


 * Thanks for writing to me, --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't even realize they were two articles! I don't see those sources as traditional, or at least not Orthodox. (JPS is conservative, JE is, well, that's another story. Of course this is all usable; I am just sugggesting a broader perspective in addition.) Did you try asking atthe Judaism Project?


 * One note on JPS. The first edition is pretty close to traditional, but the second goes off a bit into "scientific" stuff. I think the first JPS is as close to universal as you will get.


 * Here is Makkot http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Makkoth.pdf. Search for 24a; should be on the second try. You can skip the detail about David. Just be careful; they obviously aren't saying Habakuk replaced the commandments. Do you need a source that the prayer in Habakukthat is the haftorah? Shouldn't be too hard to find; let me know. In fact, this haftorah is unususal in that after the first two verses, an Aramaic poem (Yetziv Pitgam) is read before continuing, at least in many Ashkenazi synagogues.
 * I found the Judaiaca Press Bible for sale, but not an entry into contents. I suggested it because it is sort of in the middle between Artscroll and Soncino. I'm sure you can find stuff on line, but they would just be personal opinions. (Unfortunately, so are many RS's. :-
 * Thank you for listening.Mzk1 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Lila Sägezähnchen.JPG
Hello, !

It was really helpful of you to upload File:Lila Sägezähnchen.JPG, but in order to keep new images, we need to know their exact source and copyright status.

If you can edit the description page and add that information, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please ask your programmer to teach you to read. The information is there, and was copied directly from Commons for DYK, just as it should be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out what happened there. ImageTaggingBot looked at the picture during nine consecutive runs; for the first eight, it saw the c-uploaded tag and skipped the image, but on the ninth, it seems to have encountered a blank image description page. --Carnildo (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK note
Hey EncycloPetey. I've started a review for Template:Did you know nominations/Twelve Prophets of Aleijadinho. Re: above message: don't let that bot talk down to you! Tell it you'll put sugar in its gas tank. The Interior (Talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits
I would just like to inform you that you recently made a "minor edit" to the following article which would not have been considered a minor edit. A minor edit is not just any small change to an article. Usually, minor edit is synonymous with copy-edit or improvements in spelling and grammar. If you believe your edit has the chance of being disputed (such as your re-arrangement of the sections, which, while I'm in agreement with, still has the chance of being disputed) then it is best not to mark it as minor. Please see Help:Minor edit for more info. I just wanted to give you a polite heads up as editors sometimes get into the bad habit of doing this. Keep on keepin on, Cadiomals (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to read that page yourself. Included under minor edits is: "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page".  Moving sections into a different order without changing any of the text would qualify under that.  There is nothing on the page you have pointed to that indicates it is not minor if there is a chance it will be disputed, and in my experience any edit of any kind to any page has a chance of being disputed.  Thanks for your polite concern, but I really did mean that the edit was minor, and am experienced enough to know the difference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Books of the Old Testament
Since you offered, this has now been closed. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sensu POV
EP, please explain what part of the paragraph you removed struck you as having any POV other than the nature of the disciplines in question? You surely are not suggesting that the nature of geological taxonomy is isomorphic with biological taxonomy? If so, then how? And in any case, what would that have to do with POV? Do you regard the matter as contentious in some way? As for citations, what sort of citation do you consider as necessary when practically every term is linked to the appropriate article? Am I missing something? JonRichfield (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire paragraph was a personal opinion, with no supported factual content. Opinions are, by nature, POV, especially when completely unsupported.  I take issue with almost every assertion in the added paragraph regarding the nature of biological taxonomy.  Please note that links are not the same as citations; Wikipedia, by explicit statement, does not not consider itslef to be a "reliable" source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While appreciating the largeness of your views, "...entire paragraph was a personal opinion, with no supported factual content..." as a POV, it does not enable me to engage usefully with your demands. A POV must comprise some sort of proposition. If the proposition is not assailable, for instance if it invokes common cause in proper context, it is hardly POV. You claim (so far falsely) to take issue, but you do no such thing; instead you fob me off with a vacuous denial. If you wish to criticise, that is very proper, even welcome, but valid criticism has its own disciplines. Please specify some of your disagreements with the assertions. Is one of them with say, "In biology distinct taxa notionally arise from largely logically digital processes of adaptive selection limited by the nature of storage and transmission of information in the medium of nucleic acids."? I might well understand your demanding that I rephrase, but what is your problem with the substance? I would be fascinated to read your rebuttals, or how in general you would unify the bases of geological and biological taxonomies. You would allocate granites and sandstones their own phyla perhaps?
 * You also put me into a Munrovian "embarrassing position" by confusion of the functions of citations and links. If I make a passing statement that is assailable on grounds of its plausibility, lack of context, or novelty, but that I can support with a citation, then a citation is in order. If OTOH, it is a matter of general knowledge that is dealt with routinely in major articles of its own, each supported by a stack of proper citations, then a link is altogether proper. It would in fact be improper for me to include an essay, together with supporting citations on nucleic acids in biology in an article on "sensu", to which the details are irrelevant and the topic is tangential. That is occasion for links. If matters were otherwise, there would be little use for links in WP at all. As things stand, too many articles include a great deal of material, including citations, that should have been omitted in favour of links. In our example, should I have cited C&W's 1953 article in support of the NA remarks? That citation appears in the primary articles on the material. How about the E. coli-elephant comment? That is cited in the linked Monod article (Though I confess I would  have been embarrassed to demand a citation for that one!) What value would such redundant citations in this article have added? JonRichfield (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I say, the entirety was unacceptable, and I could find no germ of a salvagable idea contained within the additional paragraph. A throrough point-by-point criticism would have taken hours to write and been to little benefit.  I can provide a few specific examples to try to demonstrate the inextricability of the errors and POV from the section.  For example: "taxa notionally arise from...digital processes of adaptive selection", which is a core portion of just one of the sentences has two serious errors.  The first problem is that adaptive selection is not demonstrably "digital", as the traits upon which selection acts are typically expressed in a normal distribution within the population.  Selection acts upon the phenotype" of populations, not the "genotype" of individuals'', so the method of encoding the information is irrelevant to understanding the selective process; there is no direct action upon the genes themselves but rather the phenotypes expressed.  So, if you wish to claim that selection is "digital", you must cite that it is so.  Secondly, in this same portion of a statement, you call taxa something that "notionally" arise, but then discuss selection.  This, whether purposefully or unintentionally, conflates the taxa as perceived "real" units in nature with the idea that they are constructed categories in the minds of taxonomists.  That point in itself is a matter of considerable debate, and so cannot be inserted casually into a taxonomic article.


 * There is, as I say, far far more to be criticized but it would not be especially constructive for me to do so. The elephants and E. coli statement alone is used completely out of context; is controversial; and is even passed off as wrong by modern geneticists, the field in which it actually has original context. You have, however, hit the nail on the head in your own response above.  You say that it "would in fact be improper for me to include an essay", and that is correct.  what you included was an essay, and an encyclopedia is not the place for an essay.  It is entirely the wrong kind of tone, focus, content, and even method.  And including an essay comparing two fields of systematics in an article about the use of "sensu" is doubly inappropriate, as it does not pertain to the matter of discussion.  An essay is properly a position paper, and in taking a position, you necessarily take a POV.  This should not be done on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole article is full of material which is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. To give just one example: "These finer distinctions may well help in expressing intended meanings more flexibly, but they need not always be taken too seriously." It needs a major re-write, which would I think involve removing a great deal more than EncycloPetey did. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Peter, I have responded in effect in the discussion page of Sensu. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)