User talk:First Light/Archive 2

Merge discussion for Foot odor
I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor. Snotty Wong  comment 05:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
There is something that has really puzzled me in Articles_for_deletion/Moroccan_training_camp.

Many respondents there, including yourself, have voiced "delete" opinions, as if the only two choices were "keep" or "delete". I started the article, but I am arguing for merge. No one has argued for keep.

In a proposal I wrote a couple of months ago I argued for merging this article, and those other similar articles for which it turned out additional references haven't emerged.

I am puzzled and disappointed that so many respondents who are voicing a delete opinion have seemed oblivious to the suggeston that while the reference cited by the article is insufficient to support a separate article for this camp it is sufficient to support an entry in a table of "Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives" in a broader article.

If there is a reason you have dismissed merging this article to a larger article, where the reference would support an entry in a table, I would be very grateful if you would fill me in. Geo Swan (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've answered on the AfD page. Since this will close before I find my way back to a computer, this is probably all I'll say on the subject. Thanks for requesting more specific feedback. First Light (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Anogramma ascensionis
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Bustard
Just wondered why you'd removed the category "Birds of Iran" from Great Bustard? Iran is listed as one of the countries within the species' range. Just curious. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the discussion here. First Light (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. In this case (by chance?) the category is apparently accurate (per, e.g., ), so I'll reinstate it. Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's of course correct. I wish I had the time to go over that person's every edit for accuracy, but they number in the many hundreds over the last few months, and their track record is typically bad. Thanks, First Light (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Anogramma ascensionis
Hello! Your submission of Anogramma ascensionis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I've suggested an alternate approach there. First Light (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just seen this on the BBC: "With the help of Kew Gardens - where Hooker's dad was director - shipments of trees were to be sent to Ascension." It sounds like Kew were partly responsible for making it extinct in the first place! Smartse (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What an interesting story - thank you for sharing that. It's also curious that Kew didn't 'fess up and claim some responsibility for their part in making the plant that they had just saved, (temporarily) extinct in the first place. Surely they knew their own history when they made the discovery earlier this year. It's worth adding a mention of that to the article, which I've done. First Light (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks - I had seen enough of her in my own local news to know that she was becoming more and more notable, so I knew the sources had to be there. Since you were just going by the massive haystack called "Google", it's understandable that you didn't notice there were real sources. First Light (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was going by a lighter haystack called Google News, but she was churning out the press releases like a factory, spamming even that. Incidentally, the events that made her notable for the wrong reasons occurred three weeks after the article on her was created. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Expand
Saw your comment on Redblue82's page. I wrote an essay on the uselessness of the expand tag at WP:EXPANDALTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the essay — I was looking for something just like that at the time, but didn't want to go on and on at that editor's page. I'll remember it for future use. First Light (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: "in the basket"
Hello First Light. I am just letting you know that I deleted "in the basket", a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was leaning toward the G3 at first, but then thought otherwise. First Light (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent CSD
Thanks for tagging that one. I dind't read that far down to see if it disparced the two mentioned subjects, so I went with WP:NOTNEWS as a Prod reason. Buggie111 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It disparaged some other people, not by name, but people who knew them could have figured it out, so it certainly was deletable for different reasons. Thanks, First Light (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

National Limited
The National Limited and National Limited (Amtrak) articles describe two different trains with the same name; there shouldn't be a redirect page, but rather a split.
 * Thanks - I also left a note on your talk page asking if that was the case. My apologies for not seeing that. First Light (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam


Hello First Light, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hogwarts Syndrome
You did an immediate deletion of my article, without my having any way to appeal. I am scarcely new to Wikipedia. Why this high-handed treatment? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete the article, I only tagged it as a made-up/hoax/test article, since there is no such phrase. An Administrator did the actual deleting. First Light (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

younggodspeaks
Hi I am having trouble adding this page. It keep being nominated to be deleted. Not sure what I am doing wrong. And advice?Sandramj (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you begin by thoroughly reading the linked pages on your own talk page, "Starting an article" and "Your first article". Then, read WP:Reliable Sources and look for neutral third-party published sources about the subject that meet those standards. Finally, I would suggest reading WP:GNG, which will tell you if this person is really notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. The answer is 'probably not', but if you can find some great sources you might succeed. Most new articles about various musicians, bands, rappers, etc. end up being deleted because the person doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's a lot to read and learn, but it's the only way you'll be able to start successfully creating articles on Wikipedia. You might also start by editing other articles to learn the ropes. Good luck, First Light (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sussex Slipcote
Thanks for your help on this article. I was in a restaurant last night and 'slipcote' was on the menu (as part of a pudding). I tried to find out more about it on Wikipedia (on my phone) before ordering it and found nothing, hence my first foray into contributing today. There is a lot to learn, not least all the tags! Out of interest, where did your explanation for the name 'slipcote' come from? It sounds likely, but it is different from the meaning given on High Weald's website Thanks again, Martin Martinw17 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that the dairy's website has a different explanation for the origin of the word. I found the explanation I added here: If you click on the footnote link in the article, it will take you to the same Google book page. Now, normally a website like the High Weald Dairy site would not meet Wikipedia standards for Reliable Sources. But I think that the alternate etymology could be added since the Dairy is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and even referred to by the source that gives the other meaning - as the only dairy that makes the cheese. I'll add that other version, with a footnote to the High Weald Dairy site. You can see how I added the reference and text by looking at the 'dif' (difference) between the previous version and my edit:. Feel free, of course, to change or add to what's already been done on the article. First Light (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would tend to believe the dairy that makes the cheese, for the origin of the word 'slipcote', though both versions probably warrant a mention. First Light (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll leave in both definitions as there are numerous other references to your initial one (for example, 'Dairying' and the only references to the other I can find are on the dairy's website or on websites containing information obviously derived from that. I found a page on 'information Britain' that backs up the idea there these two definitions have been proposed.
 * Martinw17 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: The Adventures Of Afrory And Emoban
Hello First Light. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on The Adventures Of Afrory And Emoban to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Since the article didn't in any way "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", I thought it was a legitimate CSD A7 candidate, though I'm quite happy if a PROD notice has the potential to shake out some evidence to show that it's more than a home-made web comic. First Light (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 71.166.171.53
Just to let you know - I've left the American Bird Conservancy behind for now. I will return tomorrow and if he/she has persisted I'll forward the IP to WP:AIV. • Rabo³  • 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Too slow. Just noticed you've already done it. Good. • Rabo³  • 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * e/c Thanks - I've already asked for a block at WP:AIV. Persistent bugger. The IP geolocates to where ABC has their offices, so it may be an employee. First Light (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The return of the megafauna vandal
It appears the megafauna vandal has returned, this time adding non-existent categories against consensus. As always, the IP is dynamic. Examples include Special:Contributions/125.164.6.82 and Special:Contributions/125.164.26.178. The modus operandi is thus: (1) remove taxobox; (2) add category; (3) re-add taxobox; and the concealment is complete. Is the edit filter that was designed to block the megafauna vandal's edits still operational? If so, perhaps it should be refined to catch these new edits. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm about out of ideas on this one. The only two options I can see are a range block on 125.164.*, which would probably get some collateral damage, or changing the edit filter. Right now the filter stops that IP range from adding categories to articles with a taxobox. Megafauna man has that figured that out. I don't know if the filter could stop that IP range from adding categories to any article. If it could, then they might be able figure out how to bypass it in a similar way as the current filter. I left comments about a week ago on this with two editors: User:Shirik who made the filter (User talk:Shirik), and an admin who occasionally blocks the IP (User talk:JamesBWatson). I think this has to get escalated in some way, because the disruption is severe enough. First Light (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Desert Mothers
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Isoetes eludens
Courcelles 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dypsis brevicaulis
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dypsis humilis
Shubinator (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Frerea
Orlady (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Symeon the New Theologian/GA1
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chamaegigas
-- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cylindrocline lorencei
Orlady (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick note
I've left a note here relating to the Megafauna vandal. I'm so glad to see there are others working on this irritating issue. -Thibbs (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see someone else pursuing this person. They exhausted my patience long ago. First Light (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagetes image (uploaded in 2008)
So sorry to tell you that there is no way for this to be Tagetes lucida. T. lucida only ever has a maximum of 5 ray florets, and frequently fewer. This image clearly has 8. Based on floral morphology and the view of the plant in the background, it appears to be Tagetes palmeri. Koibeatu (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're right, though I think that Tagetes palmeri is a synonym for the more accurate Tagetes lemmonii. See . So much for trusting nursery labels. Now I have to go out in the garden and explain to the poor thing that I've been calling it by the wrong name for the last eight years.... Thanks, First Light (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Literature
Wikipedia rules clearly state "Since both Wikipedia and Wikitravel are now licensed under the Attribution ShareAlike license, appropriate content can be shared between the two." Why have you deleted this content?--Orestek (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Orestek, I didn't delete the page, I only nominated it for deletion. Only administrators can delete pages. Let's assume the content was from Wikitravel (the website I found it at didn't indicate it was a Wikitravel mirror, so I couldn't know that at the time). First, since you didn't give any attribution for your copy-and-paste, it violated the terms of the ShareAlike license - see Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. Here is some more specific information about copying from other Wikipedia projects, though it's rarely done here, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used to source articles: Copying_within_Wikipedia.


 * Regarding sourcing, wikis of any type are not reliable sources and should never, ever be used to source/create an article. You need to use "Reliable Sources" for writing articles on Wikipedia. See WP:RS for an explanation, and do read it closely since it's a core policy here. In this case, that would mean high quality published books or articles on the literature movement in Chicago, but written in your own words (see Close paraphrasing). For that subject, high quality would mean university or peer-reviewed publications. Not a travel wiki page written by who knows.


 * I know that Wikipedia policies are infinite, arcane, and hard to understand. But I've found that having some understanding of the main policies on sourcing and attribution are essential to writing and creating articles here. I suggest spending some time reviewing them. They helped me become a much better editor when I did that. Best of luck, First Light (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

a newbe's reply
"Please stop creating userpages in article space." Sorry I did not realize I was doing that. Can I not create sub pages of my user page? I followed this instruction --For example, if the name of the main page were :first, a typical subpage would be called :first/second. In most implementations this system is recursive, so that subpages can have their own subpages (e.g. :first/second/third)-- on some help page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janosabel (talk • contribs) 21:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can create subpages of your userspace. I explained this on your talk page, twice. Please, pretty please read WP:Article space and WP:User space. To repeat what I said on your talk page, "Your subpages should always begin with "User:Janosabel", rather than with just "Janosabel"." Also, please remember when adding a comment on a WP:Talk page, to sign with four tildes: ~ . That way people know who you are. As a newbie, I suggest that you spend more time looking at Wikipedia policy pages, learning some of the how-to's, as the best start to becoming an editor. I'll add a "Welcome" message to your talk page, which has many links that will help to educate you on how to edit Wikipedia. It's a bit complicated at first, but with some study (first) and practice it becomes easier. Your comments about subpages and 'recursive' doesn't make sense to me. It's really much simpler than that. First Light (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I get it now. But maybe that example URL starting with a colon is misleading? Janosabel (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which "example URL" you mean, unless it's the example that you gave above "(e.g. :first/second/third)". Pages here are never prefaced with a colon. The colon always follows after "User" or "Wikipedia", to give two examples. This is standard Wiki Markup. It's different from HTML markup. First Light (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case it needs to be corrected, this is the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpages. Janosabel (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that page has nothing to do with Wikipedia and how Wiki markup works. "Wikipedia" policy and how-to pages are always prefaced by "Wikipedia:", with the colon after "Wikipedia" and not starting the page. That link is to an "article" that is mostly nonsense. If you look at the top of that article, you'll see the sentence "For information on subpages in Wikipedia, see Subpages." I suggest reading that instead. First Light (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. See WP:Wikipedia space to learn what that space is about. First Light (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and patience and sorry for the trouble. Janosabel (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No trouble at all - this place is incredibly complicated. I learn something new just about every day that I edit, and find places and policies I didn't know existed. And that's after about three years and 15,000 edits. Don't hesitate to ask if anything else baffles you. First Light (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for A Human Right
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Heteromeles arbutifolia fruit.jpg
Thanks for contributing so many photos and articles. However there's a concern at Talk:Heteromeles that your photos, File:Heteromeles arbutifolia fruit.jpg, may actually depict Rowan berries. While the fruit does look very similar, the leaves are noticeably different. Is there a chance you could have misidentified the plant?  Will Beback   talk    19:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied there. First Light (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hans Ehrenberg
I noticed your comment regarding your reversal of the previous edit, which changed the date of death from August to March. Your comment made it seem like the edit was probably vandalism, which it is not. The German Wikipedia article uses March as the date of death. I have also looked online (this change was made and reverted by another editor once before) but I don't remember where I looked, only that I only saw the August date. I am going to try to nail this down, though it may take me a few days because of other more pressing commitments. Marrante (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A further comment - I just looked on the version history of the German page and the date of death was changed in October 2009. It is attributed to a book written in English and one of the authors is Hans Ehrenberg's daughter: Juliane H. John, E. C. John: To Tell of the Struggle is a Struggle. Resistance, Protest and Witness during the Third Reich, Selbstverlag, Bangalore 1996. The word "Selbstverlag" means "self-published". Nonetheless, it is by Ehrenberg's daughter. (She is also deceased.) Marrante (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - after seeing a lot of these type of unreferenced changes by new editors on bird articles, who have a history of simply changing things for the sake of changing them, I probably jumped the gun. I'll leave a comment at the article. First Light (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

welcome
Thanks for your courteous welcome. However, I did once have an editing account. Burned far too many times, I think Wikipedia is a joke, heavily weighted toward tweenish pop culture and largely ignorant of the pre-1980 world, and populated preponderously by arrogant martinets who thrive on the power of deleting what they consider the "non-noteworthy" without discussion. But I appreciate the note! 99.6.244.244 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. By the way, I share some of your views regarding Wikipedia culture. I've just chosen to try and work within the Wiki-system to improve things. First Light (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tecophilaea cyanocrocus
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Abutilon pitcairnense
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bennett Coughlin
Im am sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding. I am not pretending to be a pro soccer player as I am not Bennett Coughlin. I am a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcoughlin10 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether you are him or not, please stop pretending he/you is a professional soccer player in the Bahamas, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, UK, etc. Bennett Coughlin is really just a 10th grader playing on his high school JV team. The next time you add him to any soccer article, you will be blocked from editing. First Light (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The end of you
Some day you're going to run out of plants without Wikipedia articles. Do you have a plan for when that time comes? -- The Σ talkcontribs 03:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, no I don't have a plan. Out of approx. 900 Salvia species, I've only created about 300 articles, and I'm only growing about 25 of them. So my obsession still has a long ways to go :-). First Light (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonny Gould
I have removed the prod tag from Jonny Gould, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I think I may have searched using the incorrect spelling of his name. First Light (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Re The Natural Sapphire Company AfD
I've just noticed that the article has already been deleted once, per Articles for deletion/The Natural Sapphire Company. I assume that it's recreation was checked to see that it wasn't the same article? I'm not too clear about policy regarding this however. Do you know what the situation is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since only admins can see the previously deleted article, it's hard to say how similar the current article is. What wouldn't be the same are the new sources and content featuring the company and their replica Kate Middleton engagement ring. Those new sources alone are enough to warrant a fresh AfD. And then common practice changes over time, and that last AfD was in 2007. There are other articles that go through many AfDs, and I don't think there is a rigid policy about that. The problem here is that two good faith experienced Wikipedia editors (you and I) are trying to referee two single purpose accounts, both with a conflict of interest. Not exactly a good recipe for consensus! It would help to have some other serious editors chiming in. First Light (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've added a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry. And thanks for your level-headed efforts at keeping things on the right track at the article and deletion pages. First Light (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right of course - there is recent new content. As for getting other editors involved, I agree entirely. I posted at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, as this seemed to be the most pressing problem (sorry, I should probably have informed you too), but WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry looks like a useful place to ask too. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course the COI noticeboard is the place to go, seeing as there are multiple Conflicts of Interest. First Light (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Favorite comments
This wins my award for "favorite comment of the day". Thank you for pointing out the obvious... it hadn't been said yet, and it badly needed to. Much appreciated. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment, and for trying to improve the working environment here. It was rather obvious—at least to me—and I think it had to be said by non-WMF staff. First Light (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(Vajking (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC))
Hi, thanks for the welcome...though I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to answer you, is it? I'm not too sure about if it should just be the type species in with the genus, especially because the problem with algae is that you get a lot of strains in one species.


 * There's no typical protocol for where to respond to a comment on one's talk page - I usually Watch a talk page for some days after leaving a comment, so the conversation can stay in one place. I don't know much about algae, which is why my suggestion was so tentative. You're probably right - but if you aren't sure you can leave a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae. It's great to see new articles that are so well referenced. regards, First Light (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring indeed?
I ask you to stop edit-warring. I brought the topic to the talk page and you have so far refused to discuss it further. Instead, some anonymous IPs have continuously made edits removing nationality altogether or otherwise harming the page. I ask you to discuss it further and instead of edit-warring.--TM 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some anonymous IPs" are also editors, with as much right as you or I to edit Wikipedia. Please see the discussion at the article's talk page (which I replied to while you were writing your message here) or at the WP:BLP noticeboard for the reason why this information stays out of the article until it is verified by reliable sources. First Light (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your revert of the external link to 'Culture sheet.org' in 'Habenaria medusa'
Hi there, thank you for contacting me after having reverted the above mentioned external link. My comment: if the article itself were more than the current stub, and/or if there were lots of better links, I could agree with you, that willing to push the treshold as high as possible, we should only accept additional links at least as good as those already present. So, in the case of the common Habenaria article, I can agree with you, but with Habenaria medusa the situation is different, and the article itself a pity. So, at the present the purpose of leaving the link within the article for those, who look for some information on Habenaria medusa, is for sure greater than the purpose of throwing it out, the more that the Culture Sheet website isn't "just another hobbyist forum", but tends to be a rather serious, although not truly academical source. And if it's raining, even a not 100% perfect umbrella is always better than none ;-). So, at least as long as there isn't any better replacement, I would strongly suggest to re-establish the link that I added, but of course, I can't force you to do so. Imagine, you're an average user clicking on that page: do you really think that the current page without that link is more helpful than the page with it? With regards --Qniemiec (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would personally rather see little or no information than incorrect information. Wikipedia policy supports that approach. And culturesheet.org can be quite incorrect, from previous experience. For example, their article on Habenaria medusa quite incorrectly says that Habenaria myriotricha is considered a synonym. And because of that, our Wikipedia article is propagating the same incorrect information. IPNI says that H. myriotricha is a different plant. So does rareplants.co.uk, which is not technically a reliable source, but is a knowledgable one. So does the Royal Horticultural Society. Culture Sheet is a wiki, and not reliable enough even to qualify for our External Links. we need to share correct information, and it serves our readers poorly to send them to sites that are not reliable. First Light (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a reference that is reliable, so the article now has a legitimate source. First Light (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As you've also deleted Habenaria myriotricha from the list of synonymes, shouldn't it be added to the list of Habenaria species then? And concerning your saying that you “would personally rather see little or no information than incorrect information”, I fully agree. Being aware of the authority Wikipedia has gained in the meantime in our society, and how and how often it is cited worldwide, I also find it pretty responsible to put something there. On the other hand, the current WP article on Habenaria medusa is of almost no use for the reader, and even if the folks at Culture Sheet do some taxonomic mismatching, their text is practically much more helpful than ours. Any idea how to fill that gap? With regards --Qniemiec (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to fill that gap except to find out where they got that information and use those sources, if reliable. And yes, Habenaria myriotricha could be added to the list of species. I would probably use IPNI and the Royal Horticultural Society website for references. Most on that list don't have references, but when there is confusion, then a reference would help others.First Light (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. The book that I used as a reference has a short description of H. medusa that is available in "snippet view" on Google books. That's not the ideal way to reference an article (i.e., not being able to see the entire section on the plant), but in this case I think it's fine for the description. Hope this link works, since Google books varies by user and country: First Light (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.P.S It looks like the cultursheet.org article lists their sources at the bottom, and they include the Comber book I linked to. Probably the best use of the sources is to give a good description. All of the information at culturesheet.org about how to grow the plant isn't suitable for a Wikipedia article. "How to" sections get removed pretty quickly by other plant editors, because of WP:NOTMANUAL. regards, First Light (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Asclepias physocarpa ≠ Gomphocarpus physocarpus?
Hi there, as these questions seem to interest you: according to German Wikipedia, Asclepias and Gomphocarpus, although pretty similar on first glance, are not the same, but different plants, while in the English article the latter is claimed to be a synonyme of the first. Could you please check this? With regards --Qniemiec (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That one is on the genus level, and seems to be quite disputed, even among experts. This Google book link, from a Danish publisher, says that "The group has presented systematists with serious difficulties for decades, with no taxonomic consensus at either the species or generic level." And they point out that one expert placed the Old World species from the genus Asceplias back into Gomphocarpus, without explaining why. This is beyond my expertise, as far as figuring out which is more accepted. If you want to resolve that one, if it is resolvable, you'll find that putting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants will get some expert opinions, often including university professors and others with similar level botany expertise. First Light (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Woah...
What's going on? Why the mass rollbacks of ? &mdash; Scientizzle 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This? &mdash; Scientizzle 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * e/c, yes, that - See User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism. He's been active again the last couple weeks, adding Pakistan and lately Iran to all kinds of articles. Looks like he's branched out from birds to plants. You can ask admin User:Shyamal and also User:Kurt Shaped Box for more info. This one should probably be blocked for awhile, like the others, to minimize damage. First Light (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can see User_talk:Kurt_Shaped_Box for another recent 'whoa!' response - understandable of course. First Light (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked now. Carry on! &mdash; Scientizzle 18:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks for doing due diligence. I forgot how to add an edit comment to a mass rollback, and so it should have had an explanation, since it surely looked rather alarming.... First Light (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's beyond my programming comprehension, but have you guys tried any edit filters to catch this in action earlier? &mdash; Scientizzle 18:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not with this one, but our experience with an edit filter for Megafauna Man was disappointing. He's on the same page there, and he was similarly adding his favorite Megafauna categories to all kinds of articles. He learned eventually how to outwit the filter.... Good idea, though. First Light (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not wanting to distract....
... but at Articles for deletion/Saadaram you asked an editor about his oft-repeated boilerplate WP:VAGUEWAVE comment and received an uniformed reply.

Stating "user generated" gives the wrong impression as IMDB is not like Wkipedia or a forum or a blog. What a user "generates" does not instantly pop into existance. What happens is that users, along with studio and industry professionals such as the WGA, submit information to IMDB... and the pertinant difference is that no "user" has access to that database's editorial buttons. And while IMDB does have paid staffers involved in the vetting process for major film information, they are considered a non-RS because they include self-admittedly non-vetted information in user reviews, opinions, and discussion forums, and they do not reveal how they process "facts"... beyond stating that "facts are checked for accuracy before being approved". But real-world opinion differs widely from Wikipedia opinion on the matter. We do use it as an acceptable EL and encourage its use in seeking clues that lead to a more diligent search for non-IMDB sources. Many times something found on IMDB can lead to a wealth of sources. Sometimes not... as in this case.

And as you pointed out, the problen with VAGUEWAVE is that it does not really spark discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I for one appreciated seeing more of an explanation from the editor there. I do tend to agree with him that IMDB isn't a very reliable reference—having spent a fair amount of time commenting at, and watching, the Reliable Sources noticeboard and seeing many discussions about it there. As you say, it's good for seeking clues, and as a reality check. As I mention at the AfD, the article isn't a WP:BLP, nor is it controversial, so we should give it some time. Thanks, First Light (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation
Hello First Light, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalski@undefinedwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

 * Done, thanks. First Light (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Lawrence (mathematician)
Thanks for the catch--a little more complicated than it looked--see my comment at User talk:E.yi.ning.  DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping to make sense of it, and also for helping that editor. First Light (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils FLRC
This might not be a bad time to stop back in at Featured list removal candidates. The overhaul of List of vegetable oils has been finished, so it's a good time to mention any remaining issues. Waitak (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a short comment there. Thanks for all the good work that you and 86.** IP did on the list. First Light (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Trenzalore
I don't understand why you felt the need to the AfD of this article. All of the links that are present lead to a more in-depth understanding of the topic discussed. Please review Trenzalore and truely read the content of the article. It may seem incoherent but it could not make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrydeanrsmith (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I explained my reasons on the Article for Deletion discussion page. Just so you know, the "AfD" process is the best way to get the feedback of other editors who are knowledgable about these things. That way it's not just my opinion that matters. The AfD process is open for one week—so I will await responses from other editors first, even if that takes 4-5 more days. That way it's a community-wide discussion, rather than something just between you and me. When I do have more to say, it will be done there, and not here. In the meantime, I suggest you start reviewing those links I pointed out on your talk page, and the links in the Welcome message. That will help you to understand more about Wikipedia policies. I know the guidelines here are sometimes difficult to understand, so do spend some time at it. It's one reason that new editors are sometimes helped by editing existing articles first, rather than creating a brand new article as their very first edit. They can gain some experience and knowledge about Wikipedia that way. Please consider taking my advice. Regards, First Light (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School
It appears you've been involved in trying to correct the runamok Controversies section of this article. Will you please check out the Talk page? We're trying to pare that section down and take out the disparaging opinions, particularly the last sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.51 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Salvia apiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chumash (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) 11:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message - I'll check all such links from now on (yes, I know I'm talking to a bot :-)). First Light (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi First Light,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Abutilon hybridum edit conflict
Hi, just to let you know that I didn't mean to wipe out your edits! Some weird conflict happened, and I'll try to fix it. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it, I've done that more than once, and I know that whatever you are doing will be an improvement. First Light (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh, thanks for the trust. Anyway, I think it is fixed now. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)