User talk:Gderrin/Archive 2

Pterostylis rubiginosa
Pterostylis rubiginosa seems to be a bit of a "mystery orchid" as far as taxonomic databases go. Right now the name is not in IPNI; I've drawn their attention to the APNI entry. WCSP only has Speculantha rubiginosa as "unplaced", and also doesn't give the name in Pterostylis. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the answer lies in the names(s) of the author(s). Jones and Copeland named some orchids as Speculantha. Two sets of authors then changed the names to Pterostylis, so that, for example, Pterostylis divaricata (D.L.Jones & L.M.Copel.) L.M.Copel. & D.L.Jones and Pterostylis divaricata (D.L.Jones & L.M.Copel.) J.M.H.Shaw are isonyms. Perhaps WCSP was notified of the changes made by Shaw, but Shaw had not made a change to Speculantha rubiginosum. WCSP relied on the Royal Horticultural Society (2017), Quarterly Supplement to the International Register of Orchid Hybrids (Sander's List) 125(1319). They were not notified of the changes made in Australian Orchid Review 81(6). Strange, because WCSP has made the changes noted in the later Australian Orchid Review 82(3) (such as to Speculantha furva/Pterostylis furva and 16 others that I haven't got to yet!)


 * In fact, Copeland and Jones made the changes in 2016, before Shaw in 2017 so their name should take preference, I think.(talk) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Gderrin (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * IPNI has now added Pterostylis rubiginosa (D.L.Jones & L.M.Copel.) L.M.Copel. & D.L.Jones in response to my e-mail, so both this name and the basionym show up in the taxonbar in the article.
 * Great work you're doing on Australasian orchids! I can hardly keep up with creating/modifying the Wikidata entries; I certainly couldn't create such detailed articles as quickly as you.
 * I've also created Wikidata items for these two Pterostylis species if you want some more articles to create:
 * Pterostylis arbuscula (D.L.Jones & C.J.French) D.L.Jones & C.J.French, basionym Urochilus arbusculus D.L.Jones & C.J.French
 * Pterostylis crebriflora (D.L.Jones & C.J.French) D.L.Jones & C.J.French, basionym Urochilus crebriflorus D.L.Jones & C.J.French
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1. Thanks for the compliment! 2. Thanks for the work you do including fixing IPNI, Wikidata and helping other editors. 3. Thanks for the new spp. (2018 indeed!). I'll have to find some $$$ to buy the relevant journals. Gderrin (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to say that IPNI has now added the names in Pterostylis that were in APNI but not in IPNI for all the species that Jones & French or Clements initially put in Urochilus, and I've added the IPNI IDs to Wikidata. This means that the taxonbars in Pterostylis atrosanguinea and Pterostylis orbiculata now show up correctly. I also told WCSP about the names they were missing, but apparently they only update from sources like APNI once a year, so names in 2018 publications won't appear until the start of 2019. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * and thanks again . Gderrin (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

apology
intrusion at the tops item - methinks it could be more a stub than a disambig - hope you dont mind JarrahTree 04:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better - thanks. I think it is worth expanding - just difficult to find info. Gderrin (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

New Corybas species
Hello Gderrin, this message: new Corybas was sent to me by User:Gnangarra. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothofagus
I will be bold next week and make the changes (Lophozonia etc. -> Nothofagus), preferably with your support. Krasanen (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

thank you
as always for your putting the appropriate material on talk pages - always appreciated !! JarrahTree 00:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am trying in practice to elevate any declared rare flora to mid importance on the biota-importance scale and anything in the extreme situation (probably extinct or less than a healthy population left) to the top of the scale JarrahTree 12:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks - sounds good to me. Gderrin (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope I am doing this right, but got a message from Gderrin welcoming me into Wikipedia, and giving me a list of great tutorial material. Just wanted to say thanks --PrecociousPeach (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Checking of one of your pictures
Hello Gderrin, User:Hindustanilanguage had changed your picture: File:Caladenia excelsa 02.jpg to File:Caladenia procera 02.jpg. Could you please check, if the change is correct? Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. .....just I saw your excellent new pictures of today and your correction of File:Caladenia procera 02.jpg. Orchi (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello - Another one of my mistakes. Sorry. Last year I labelled an image of C. procera as C. excelsa. Now they both have the correct labels. And thank you, - more orchid images coming soon. Gderrin (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hakea lissosperma
Cheers for having a look at the taxo section, I had just messaged Plantdrew to check it out for me. Did you read the rest of it? The wording is quite unusual. Do you want me to do a fix up or do you want to have a go at it first? Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello It seems the editor (茶杯叮叮) wrote most of the article over a few days in 2016, has not edited anything else and has not edited since 25 March 2016. Most probably also had English as a second language. That's probably why the taxonomy was confused. I certainly think the article needs a clean up. If you're up for it, by all means do it. Thanks for all your work. I'll leave most of the hakea stuff to you and Allthingsnative. Gderrin (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, just wanted to make sure you didn't have plans for it. Cheers and thanks for sorting out the taxo part. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

sir....
dare I address your honoured self as such... (I left this at margarets talk as well...) in my rather peripatetic wanderings in the mysteries of the plants project I have realised that most australian endangered species had been deemed low for everything - I have ventured, dare I say, to change that. Considering the relative small populations of some, they seem to, from the reading of the info, deserve more than low importance... please feel free to challenge my assertions at any of the said items. Thanks. ... in other words they are getting mid importance or higher where they are down to very small known populations and live inside a endangered category... cheers JarrahTree 07:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mate, you won't get any quibbles from me on this issue. I've read the stuff at WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria (absolutely rivetting, fascinating) but can't find anything that should stop your doing what you're planning. Gderrin (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * hahah - dem rules - just seems real dumb to have the whole biota project at low importance JarrahTree 07:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * trout and other similar items can be slapped if i make a mess of the talk page items.. JarrahTree 01:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have just done an upgrade on computer and thought I might have lost the tilde key !! hopefully solved soon, sorry about my mistake on the category mis-write this am JarrahTree 03:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC) I didn't even notice! Gderrin (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC) haha - I had created a category without the (plant) qualifier... all gone now JarrahTree 23:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Thanks for that


 * hmmm - there are more potential projects on that one than a small novel... JarrahTree 03:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * have no idea why the email buggered up - basically when one gets distribution on something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheirostylis I simply give up - plants is enough - to put component country tags for that full distribution is crazy country - I dont subscribe to over-tagging of projects, it looks dumb ... JarrahTree 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC) I agree. Thanks for your note and your work on categories. Gderrin (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Phaius tankervilleae var. bernaysii
I'd like to apologize for changing the link to a botanical author at Phaius tankervilleae var. bernaysii. I visited the page "List of botanists by author abbreviation" and Verner Hawsbrook Rowland was listed as the author for "Rowland". Sorry about that! Best regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

lazy me
please re-instate if I dont, problem with lack of adequate project tagging I was not closely double checking the status - my error, please feel free to apply trout! trout slapping vip for lazy project upgrading - should have done closer checks! sorry JarrahTree 02:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it is, it is, the sky will fall in (asterix) - just when, the timing, is not necessarily easy to ascertain. JarrahTree 02:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * oops - thanks for pointing that out JarrahTree sorry you have to tidy up after me :(  JarrahTree 05:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am hoping to gain
some sort of very ad hoc consensus that when we (those who play on talk pages of oz biota) that when we find something is endangered or worse - that we raise all the importance to 'mid', and anything close extinction to top/high in importance - I have probably already discussed somewhere above (apologies if I repeat too often) - does that seem reasonable? JarrahTree 23:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have only one problem with that - my own memory. Yep - very reasonable (your proposal - not my memory). Gderrin (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * hahaha - indeed, we have probably discussed this above - as I said, we are in the same form of maritime transport me thinks JarrahTree 23:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've taken the view that in botany or zoology anything at the species level has low importance. And tend to prefer that view, particularly as the various categories of threatened species may change: For example in checking out the SPRAT entries for Acacia wardelii and Acacia ramiflora, I found both had been removed from the EPBC threatened lists. See  and .  But I am easy with whichever decision you wish to make and will not change whatever you choose to do (although when I come to do it, at this stage, I will continue with my current practice unless I can be persuaded that it is vitally important that I change. (I find it  hard enough keeping articles up-to-date without having to worry about the talk pages too!!) So my current preference is to keep the importance parameter as low for species.  (You might like to widen the discussion  by finding a more general forum to give us a consensus on this issue??) MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. what importance would you give to species which are deemed vulnerable under an act? (This status can be downgraded, as seen, to no longer threatened.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't attach great importance to this subject. I am much more concerned about the effect of editors adding "Least Concern" to the taxobox of orchids (as on Thelymitra cyanea) because of its potential impact on conservation status. Gderrin (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I realise the whole exercise is fraught with difficulties - best place - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_biota JarrahTree 23:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Gderrin. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AGderrin granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Good to see this! Just to remind you, WP:SWAP explains how to do a swap, but much easier is to use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js, which is explained at User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap. If you need any more information, don't hesitate to ask me. Seasons greetings! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * agree with Peter - well done! JarrahTree 11:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings
Good day Gderrin, I wish you festive holidays and for the year 2019 all the best. May bring us all the new year a peaceful coexistence. I hope, that we continue to enjoy our plants here. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings
...and to you and yours. Thanks for all your work, especially on DYK nominations. Gderrin (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dendrobium cucumerinum
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dendrobium bowmanii
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

any thoughts
Your experience wit wikidata of names no longer used for plants? I have been watching the re-named bulbophylum items done today - one small problem is that the former/not used named items may have grown wikidata numbers - I havent asked my wikidata expert friends whether former/abandoned names for items can have individual numbers in data small issue though, sure it can be solved... but any thoughts appreciated JarrahTree 07:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * G'day . I don't think this should be a problem, as long as when the Bulbophylum sp. article is written, the wikidate info. for the synonyms is added. (As, for example someone has done for Dendrobium linguiforme.) Have a great 2019. Gderrin (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dendrobium falcorostrum
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Diuris
I'm curious as to your revision that '"Terrestrial orchid" and "ground orchid" are not common names.' I'm wondering given if we could revise my edit to better reflect that genus belongs to the ground or terrestrial orchid group?Matthew (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Thanks for your question. The many thousands of kinds of orchids belong to one of three groups: 1. terrestrial (or "ground") orchids that live in soil; 2. epiphytic orchids that live on other plants (usually trees); 3. lithophytic orchids that live on rocks. The majority (tens of thousands of species) are "terrestrial orchids". (You may have noticed that in the "Description" section of the article I have "terrestrial".) However, there are other common names for Diuris species and your question has prompted me to add them and to Wikilink "terrestrial". So...thanks for that! ✅ I hope I have adequately answered your query. Gderrin (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

excellent!
well done you have got to a numerically interesting point 23400 edits! youll catch up with me yet :)  JarrahTree 09:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC) @JarrahTree
 * Unlikely! but thanks - pleased to have started more than 2,000 plant pages tho'. Gderrin (talk)
 * high quality material that really improves the biota project every time! JarrahTree 01:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - as it is so bleeding obvious - I would say the synonym redirects just do it - the work is so good - to be able to place in the current correct form is something you dont wait for anyone else imho - it is looking really great - good on you! JarrahTree 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * phew - my watchlist is gone completely electric! hey please dont take it all personally :(    JarrahTree 10:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that is very good - it keeps me away from tinkling with the caladenia's :)  - looks like rater is going ok for you! JarrahTree 10:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

list of eucalypts
your updating it and the amazing effort to make it compatible surely inspires the idea of barnstars/awards for biota contributions!!! it looks really great!!! JarrahTree 00:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Much happier with this version. Gderrin (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting synonyms
When you turn an article into a redirect because it's a synonym, as you did with Bulbophyllum psychoon and 151 other Bulbophyllum articles, you should clean up the talk page, as I have, by changing the class to redirect and the importance to NA. Also, it would be nice to update the target articles' infoboxes with the name of the synonym(s), which I have not done. Abductive (reasoning) 10:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are wonderful. Gderrin (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

tree giants
further to our last discussion, if you could read over what I have done on the big eucalypts. I have probably left a few loose threads and untidy sentences, and any suggestions and improvements would be appreciated. Regards, cygnis insignis 10:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very happy to help. Trouble is, I don't know what pages you are referring to. By the way, someone (who shall remain nameless) thought "900 species of eucalypts" means "900 species of Eucalyptus"!! More than 700 species of Eucalyptus" is pretty close to the mark I think. Gderrin (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * An easy mistake to make, it was probably Hesperian. So you don't like puzzles, I'll make a note. The six southwest giants are yate, karri, jarrah, marri, tuart and the other one. You would think I could remember what the other one was, having expanded it, I'm thinking yarri and that turns out to be right. Happy editing. cygnis insignis 11:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC) They all look pretty good to me. Gderrin (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ORES
ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_Wikimedia_projects#ORESon rater assesment box has https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eucalyptus_cadens B - so raised it again JarrahTree 04:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Boronia
Hi. Thanks for all your support. I have added a few Boronia occurrence data maps to the commons Category:Boronia distribution maps which you might find useful. I'll try to get a few more up in the next few days.. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

btw
Rater and ORES in all their mechanical wisdom are rating quite a few eremophila articles as being at GA level - maybe you need to try... JarrahTree 08:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Wow - okay. I'll have a go. Thanks! Gderrin (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * but take care the rather horrifying thing is many GA assessors know nothing about the subjects they are reviewing, (just like new page reviewers know nothing about project tags on talk pages )- its a cruel world out there JarrahTree 10:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * so E.racemosa shows up as ORES Predicted class: GA - might be a good example. JarrahTree 10:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll start with that then. I'm cool, whatever reception it gets. Gderrin (talk)
 * scopario is another JarrahTree 10:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

tagging in one go
Thank you so much - you make the work of the Australian biota project so much easier - thanks! rushed sign User:JarrahTree 01:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Veronica perfoliata
Hello! Your submission of Veronica perfoliata at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Veronica perfoliata
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pterostylis anaclasta
Hi: I would agree that this species was first described by Jones, but the article itself seems to indicate that Janes & Duretto renamed it. So I am a bit at a loss as to why my edit giving the naming to Duretto was reverted? Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Sorry - responded on your page before I read this. Gderrin (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Link removal
Hello. I unlinked country names from the article as per MOS:OVERLINK, which states that country names should not be linked. Primergrey (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

authors and authorities
I see now the second ref was already there. As for the authority, it is a good question? The way I had it has the merit of simplicity, there is only one choice ;-) cygnis insignis 14:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. I intend to use the Australian Plant Census on each Australian plant article as I write it, and to add it to earlier pages I started where APC has a page. (Orchids not covered yet.) Gderrin (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What I mean is do we add the citation to the first description or to an authority like APC in the taxobox? Adding both to the article is good I think, again, apologies where I am being unclear. cygnis insignis 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... well I think APC is the best to have in the taxobox (for Australian species, and where it's available). After that, in the "Taxonomy" section, the more the merrier I supposed - especially when interesting, as is the H.Y.L. Brown reference that you added to Eremophila tietkensii. Thanks for your interest in this species. It was quite an ordeal to get the images. Gderrin (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It astonishes me that people would not be interested in the species, eromophila are extraordinary. I just happened to see the first description while reading something else, but realise you had it covered after dropping it into the article. I didn't look at the photos until now, if others want to the same they should look at your work as an example of an informative set of images. cygnis insignis 02:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Greek to me
Are the Eucalypt articles being trolled? Don't suppose you could take a look at Eucalyptus leptopoda and share your thoughts? Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Mate, I already have. Secret message coming soon. Gderrin (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This (amateur) botanist had a great laugh - top marks for comedic effect! Hughesdarren (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

sepala
In your edits on Boronia angustisepala you seem to implicitely suggest that the etymology of Duretto was altered due to the existence of rule Article 23.5 in the Code. In this quite readible account of the botanist Frederic Clements, Clements explains how adjectival compounds based on a- and o-stem nouns are being created. See for similar examples as sepalum, p. 364, 2(a). As you can see here, you do not change the gender of the original word in the etymology, but change the gender of the adjectival compound. Also of notice, the botanist Clements provide full words [when that is possible] when providing an etymology. I fully recommend reading this paper. Wimpus (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem, as with other examples you've raised, is in deciding how much linguistic detail to give.
 * It's not actually wrong to say that the (adjectival) epithet angustisepala is derived from the Botanical Latin words angustus and sepala, just incomplete. Since I don't believe that our readers really want to know the linguistic details of sepalum (neuter noun) → sepalus (masculine adjective) → sepala (feminine adjective), I don't think it matters one jot whether it's said to be derived from angustus + sepalum or angustus + sepalus or angustus + sepala. The advantage of the last is that readers who don't know how to decline Latin (which will be the overwhelming majority) won't be puzzled, and those who do (like you) can work it out for themselves. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , you do not get it. Sepalus and sepala are not adjectives. And Duretto, did not translated sepala as an adjective. So, you are confusing all kind of things. Wimpus (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we must simply disagree about sepalus. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, could you provide a source that states that sepalus is a noun and|or a source? Not, your own opinion, but a reliable source from a reliable scholar (not from someone like Duretto). Wimpus (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This user, dear Wimpus, did not build the amount of content they have by long discussions over one or two words, or need to do that, you are insisting on a discussion that others have advised is unnecessary and possibly original research. Persisting to continue picking apart published errors in impolite, that is not our business and evidently becoming disruptive to those going about their business at this place. cygnis insignis 17:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is unnecessary. As, I have corrected the last few days, a large amount of lemmata on Wikipedia that contained misinterpretations of certain sources, etymology is not treated nicely. I think it is necessary that people become aware that etymology is not a trivial excercise. Wimpus (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that it is only the other stuff I read about, and I try not to judge, you could check my new page on Crash bandicoot if you are inclined. cygnis insignis 12:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have tried without apparent success to explain, I edit Wikipedia using reliable sources (as defined at WP:Reliable sources) to write plant articles. Regarding Clements, the rules of botanical nomenclature have changed since 1902 and I am not at all interested in reading it. I am fully occupied expanding plant stubs or writing new pages. The link to the Shenzhen code should not have been removed from the Boronia angustisepala page. But there is no point in arguing with you. You do not understand the principle of consensus. "Ha - you're wrong. Delete that." (In the meantime, you have made a grammatical mistake on the page you have reverted, a mistake I had already corrected.) Gderrin (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Letting you know that I have advised User:Wimpus that I consider he/she has engaged in disruptive editing. Gderrin (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully support this action. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and if Peter does so, so do I. Specially as this actually affects Australian biota thousands of articles with such weirdness. JarrahTree 09:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Me three. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Labellum calli
My apologies for the wrong edit. So, labellum calli is not a Latin expression, meaning the labellum of the callus, but an English compound meaning the calli of the labellum? Maybe, the phrase calli of the labellum, would be less ambiguous. Wimpus (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Try reading the article, (like most people would), not just the etymology. "At the base of the labellum there are two fleshy, dark purple, club-shaped parallel calli....." "Labellum calli" is no more ambiguous than "nose hair" or "dog collar". Gderrin (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You could link parallel calli to nose hair. cygnis insignis 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice shots
Great photos! Nice to catch up and hope you enjoyed the rest of your journey. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Epacris calvertiana
Hi. I was hoping you might have a look at Epacris calvertiana. It seems to be quite a mix up, and I thought since you had created it, you were probably in the best position to clean it up. I had been going to add in the etymology that Mueller named it for "Ludovica Calvert" (Louisa Atkinson) but when I saw the three name mix-up, I thought I would leave it to you. Hope that is OK. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear me! How did I do that! Will fix shortly. Thank you very much. Gderrin (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Fixed now. Gderrin (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow
Nice work on all the the Eucalyptus images! You have been busy, hope all is well. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Thanks mate! All well. Your place dry this year, although not as dry as here. Best to you. Gderrin (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

oops
apology about the duplicate tagging on the eucalypt, I think the new version of rater might have or not had me tricked at that point. JarrahTree 09:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * if we are tagging at same time, it seems to happen... sorry about that. JarrahTree 07:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions
You have not responded to several questions and remarks yet on the following talk-pages:. Wimpus (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry - not prepared to answer questions from somebody who removes material citing reliable sources, then wants to ask questions. Gderrin (talk)
 * Yesterday you asked me to provide an explanation:
 * You have still not provided a justification for removing sourced material. Do not remove reliably sourced information without consensus.
 * Why would I provide an answer to someone that does not seem to mind that he is systematically misreading, misquoting and misinterpreting sources and providing false etymologies?
 * Since my response, I found two additional lapsus ("misidentifying -formis as word", "using Brown for information not found in Brown"). Additionally, I had to remind you about the mix-up of Latin and Greek in Eucalyptus loxophleba. In this case, I should have removed the content immediately to protect Wikipedia and to prevent dissemination of false etymologies. In can already find eight mirror-sites providing the false etymology. I would have removed material citing reliable sources, but it would have shield Wikipedia from spreading false information. The latter is of utmost importance.
 * In case you wouldn't be indifferent whether an etymology is correct or not, you would have checked your sources more carefully. And in case, you would truly care about the reliability of Wikipedia, you would be very prudent in making etymological edits at all, given your history of hundredths of etymological mistakes. I would make similar mistakes, if I would make edits regarding Arabic etymology. I can only read four letters of the Arabic alphabet (actually enough to spot a transliteration error in one my student's bachelor's thesis) and I can only mention words derived from the Arabic language, instead of the actual Arabic words. I would be extremely prone to copying errors and would easily confuse the singular and plural. Therefore, I do not intend to make extensive edits with respect to Arabic etymology.
 * One should think that encountering another mistake like Eucalyptus loxophleba, would help you to realize that you have to change your modus operandi, but that remains whishful thinking. Wimpus (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

getting close
- mind you that is just first pass... 00:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings
Dear Gderrin, I wish you all the best for the coming Christmas days. May the new year 2020 bring us peaceful coexistence and a successful time here and everywhere. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

New Year
Trust it all goes well and thanks for your forbearance of the last 12 months of the strange comings and goings and all - and that you are well away from any major blazes at this point... remember some of your photographs might now be of archival purposes for things that may no longer exist !!! (hope you dont have friends or family seriously affected by the one big fire of the east coast) JarrahTree 05:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate - all the best to you and yours. Yes - several rare orchids near here definitely in trouble although others may benefit. We're all safe though it's very smokey. Gderrin (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

some items to note
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/study-finds-many-eucalypt-species-are-in-serious-decline/11982742 and similar items on the abc recently - if you ever see the official list please let know! there was an abc story that has eluded about wa eucalypst being listed as endangered... JarrahTree 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have accessed the paper by Fensham et al. The paper says there are 822 eucalypt species (Eucalyptus, Corymbia, Angophora) 193 threatened, 36 data deficient assessed under the IUCN Red List. Haven't had a chance to read the whole paper yet. Gderrin (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * excellent - would be great to incorporate that into what we have - thank you. JarrahTree 03:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. Just as soon as I've finished Corymbia and Angophora species. Coupla weeks I guess. Gderrin (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * no rush, I just couldnt get in to the list, but hey, whenever...JarrahTree 09:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep - bit expensive. I didn't know the exchange rate fared badly today when I purchased it!
 * therein lies the rub - I was sure one of the libraries I belong to gets access into that realm - but I might have my library ebook/e providers confused... my university bound friends might have possible access, need to do a small prod or two... JarrahTree 09:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The flowers in the hills today were brilliant !!!! I hope to get some more up on commons soon !!!  Trust all is well !! JarrahTree 09:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks but things are not well - I'm here, not there!!! Gderrin (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I keep adding to commons things that are already there !  Wish I was like you and able to seek out those that are not yet there... in commons that is... JarrahTree 02:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Australian biota project
Has got to a new stage of its progress in this confusing and chaotic world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_Australian_biota_articles = 0. Please help by when creating new biota articles for australia, to make sure the unassessed page stays the way it is adequately tagged, or please ask for help in doing so... More on the next stages of the Australian biota project soon... and thanks for whatever you have done for the project in any way since 2006 - JarrahTree 05:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Further to this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_biota&action=edit&section=45 - please put it in your watch,so we have a central discussion point if we can - thanks... JarrahTree 08:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tribulus platypterus
Hi, Geoff. I am hoping that you can supply the answer to my ignorance. I have started putting in "Not threatened" when a West Australian species is thus listed in FloraBase, but I am struggling to find the name of (and therefore link to) the relevant WA law or statute, and was hoping that you might supply my lack. Hope you and yours are keeping safe in this difficult time. (Always appreciate the work you do.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello . Thanks for the question (the sort of stuff I like delving into) and for the compliment. The relevant legislation is the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (of Western Australia). (No Wikipedia page. It replaced the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950.) However, the legislation does not refer to species that are "not threatened", so I don't think it would be correct to write "not threatened under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016". I'm in the habit of referring to FloraBase when the species is listed there as "not threatened", but referring to the conservation codes and the Declared Rare and Priority Flora List when threatened. (eg. Leptospermum confertum) I hope that answers. My best to you. Gderrin (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for administrator
See here. Wimpus (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You probably don't want to esculate things (and I don't blame you), but I think you can make the case that he is harassing you, casting aspersions, and assuming bad faith with things like and. Sorry you are still dealing with this and that I haven't put the time in the proposal that I thought I would. TelosCricket (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC
That's fine. I really wanted to try to help with this, but I've been pulled in so many directions lately. TelosCricket (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taxa named by Heinrich Wilhelm Schott


A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Heinrich Wilhelm Schott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this category should have been listed for speedy deletion, since it was only created four hours ago (not seven days). There is an article about Schott, he is listed as a botanist and has named many hundreds of plant taxa. There was a delay of four hours whilst I expanded an article about the first of them. Gderrin (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * all the tagging does is start the seven-day clock; if the category is populated in that time (as happened in this case) the tag is removed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Gastrodia gunatillekeorum
Thanks for the commment on my article Gastrodia gunatillekeorum. I really apreciate it, and it has been accepted as an article. Can you add an image to the article? I am awaiting your reply.

Thanks, Vihaking277Vihaking277 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vihaking277 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello : (Vihansith Kulatunga) You've done a great job on the article. I would love to be able to add an image of the plant, but as it is rare, grows in Sri Lanka, and I live in Australia, I think it would be very hard. I also may not be able to get home again!


 * By the way, when you add something to a talk page (a user talk page or an article talk page) please remember to sign using four tildes.


 * And please keep writing articles about plants. Gderrin (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * although there are questions about creating articles on taxa not yet recognized in secondary sources, as this one seems not to be. It's not really in line with WP:PSTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I live in Sri Lanka, but I live in Trincomalee, a harbor town, so I wouldn't expect to find any of the plants. thanks for the comment. Here's my user page Also, my new Gastrodia article has been reviewed and accepted. Here it is: Gastrodia zeylanica

Thanks, Vihaking277Vihaking277 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PS: You may not be able to make it back due to COVID-19.

Disambiguation link notification for August 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zanthoxylum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pirani. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Banksia comosa and Banksia wonganensis
Hi, I was just having a look at the articles on two of the dyrandras near Mount Matilda in WA, Banksia comosa and Banksia wonganensis, for which you have two great photos. I noted on the image discussion page for the former that you expressed some doubt on the ID. Having been there myself and checking online tonight, I think that the comosa image is wonganensis and vice-versa. What do you think? Melburnian (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Melburnian. I took those images when new to the game and uploaded them much later after starting to contribute to W. I'm sure you're right, have caned myself for stupidity, and will make the necessary corrections. (Even if I wasn't sure, I'd rely on your expertise.) Gderrin (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, and thanks for all your great work on Australian plant articles. Melburnian (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

sources for Australian orchids
Hi Gderrin, I was just curious what sources you normally go to when writing descriptions for the countless species whose pages you've expanded. :) JadeSpire (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * G'day Thanks for asking. It's great to know that somebody else is interested in Australian orchids. I used books mostly. The main one was David Jones's Complete Guide to Native Orchids of Australia. Its out-of-print but I have a orchid-expert friend who lent it to me, and it should be in larger libraries. (I know it's in the UNE library.) I also have Brown et al. Field Guide to the Orchids of Western Australia now apparently out-of-print and Hoffman and Brown Orchids of South-West Australia. I also bought some of the earlier volumes of Australian Orchid Research. Online, the APNI is often useful for finding resources (such as for Caladenia abbreviata). The fun part is finding the species in the bush and getting an image. (A whole other story there.) I hope that's useful. Good luck with your editing. Gderrin (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your recommendations! I'll be sure to check them out. Unfortunately, I don't live in Australia, so I am limited to browsing through publications and looking through photos when learning about native orchids. I hope that doesn't change anything between us collaboratively! Also, just curious, are you an iNaturalist user? JadeSpire (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * PS: I have requested a username change, so I may not be operating under this username for much longer. :) JadeSpire (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ...And the change has been approved! :) Nicholaswei (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay. Re. your iNaturalist question: I use any source I can find. The problem with iNaturalist is that most of the images there are "all rights reserved". Gderrin (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Banksia serrata
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 16, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/December 16, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2498 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your Revert in Melaleuca strobophylla ?
What's wrong with the link I added ? --Ztlemssani (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Question answered on Ztlemssani's talk page. (MOS:OL) Gderrin (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Fern taxa
Hi, we agreed at WP:PLANTS to use the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group system (PPG I) for the classification of ferns and lycophytes. PoWO takes a very different view on some taxa, often an extreme lumping one – see e.g. Blechnum. So the standard for fern taxa is World Ferns, as this uses PPG I. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Peter,


 * (Greetings! Long time no talk.) It's not only POWO that lists Lycopodium       as an accepted species - it is also listed at the Australian Plant Census. It is very difficult for editors writing about Australian plants to ignore species listed there. It is not immediately apparent to an Australian editor that this is a fern species. I also think some might argue that Lycopodium is not a fern genus, whereas Blechnum is. I accept what you say about WP:PLANTS but damned if I can find it. (Looking forward to your response, but we're near the Australia Day holiday - mine might be delayed.) Gderrin (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should have written "ferns and lycophytes" above (now added); PPG covers both. It's not a question of ignoring other names; Pseudolycopodium § Taxonomy discusses the placement in Lycopodium, but we have to have an agreed and consistent system for article titles, and PPG is supported by a very large number of pteridophyte taxonomists.
 * See WikiProject Plants/Resources. If you search for "PPG" in the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants you'll find discussions.
 * Happy Australia Day on the 26th! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite ridiculous, when every Australian botanist/taxonomist, the Australian National Botanic Gardens, all state herbaria where this common species occurs, and the Flora of Australia know it as Lycopodium deuterodensum. Gderrin (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But see . You can't expect all sources to update immediately. It remains to be seen whether Australian botanists will eventually go with PPG or not. However, if we just accepted regional usage for widespread taxa, we could rapidly get an inconsistent mess in an international encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cyanicula


A tag has been placed on Category:Cyanicula requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)