User talk:Granitethighs/archive 2

Sandbox3
Hi Granitethighs. I deconnected the categories you had placed in the article you are working on in your sandbox. I assume you forget. I sometimes do! But in case not: Articles are generally only placed in categories when they are in mainspace. As long as the article is in userspace, it normally isn't placed in a category. I have put a : at the start of each category name so you can see the category name, but the article doesn't appear in that category. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 02:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be back
Yes, I am back (how did you know?? I haven;t edited anything yet!) Things are going so well, the article is looking great, perhaps I should go away again? If I had made a comment, it would have been to add Genuine Progress Indicator to the sidebar of "sustainability measures" (it's a good article, and covers well the concept of what not to measure which is an interesting question), but it felt churlish to make a comment so small after leaving you and others to do all the work, my real comment is, it looks great. Just gathering my thoughts at this point, having come from here to civilisation in one day I am a bit disoriented. Again, well done, and yes I'll be back on the team.--Travelplanner (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultigen
Hi, just passing by this article, I noticed an inconvenience in the third line-- Group dubbed (lacking any disambiguation help), but not cultivar group --which made it hard to get the info. Since you're a regular on the article, I thought you might to check it out. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability diagram
Good suggestion, sorry I've been offline for a week and shouldn't really be doing Wikipedia tonight either (the real world has taken over) so it will be next week before I have it ready. Sorry again, --Travelplanner (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

accessibility - colloring text in navigation boxes
I responded to your question about the sustainability template on my talk page. However I have a more general question/concern about coloring the text in navigation boxes.

Recently you added color to text in a number of navigation boxes. Is there some policy/document/etc. on wikipedia (e.g. in the style guides, etc.) that supports this sort of changes? It appears to be in contrast to WP:Navigation which says that navigation templates should not be needlessly decorative. (Wouldn't be the first time that various Wikipedia documentation conflicted.)

In particular, introducing more colors may make it more confusing for users and may impair accessibility. By lowering contrast, etc. (Have you checked your changes for accessibility to those who are color blind, etc.? see Colours)) Have you checked the effect on monochrome displays?  In print?   Does it work well with customized appearances (e.g., if they have changed what color blue links and red links are, e.g. - see Skin)?

As a side note, in terms of implementation, I think styles or templates would be more appropriate than font codes.

I have reverted some of these changes, because of the concerns I mention here. (Green text on green background in sustainability template was hard to read; bright blue conjunctions in other templates were distracting, etc.) If there is policy/etc. supporting these changes I would like to know about it so that I can improve my editing of Wikipedia. If there is not, please consider reverting other similar changes you may have made, and if you wish to pursue the matter, discuss it in the relevant talk areas. (such as at: WikiProject Accessibility, WikiProject Usability, WP:WikiProject Templates )

Thanks. Zodon (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussing changes to Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites
You posted the following on my talk page:

"Hi Zodon. Since you do not seem prepared to discuss your changes to this article I have decided to revert them. Granitethighs (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)"


 * How did you determine that I seemed unprepared to discuss the changes? I can't find anyplace where you asked any questions about them.  If you had reverted the change, providing a summary of why, that would seem compatible with WP:BRD.  But to come accuse somebody of being unwilling to discuss, without asking a question or allowing them time to respond does not appear particularly polite.  Please consider WP:CIVIL.


 * Even your edit summary in reverting the change provides no reason for your doing so. That you disagree with the edit I have now gathered, but how is one to understand your concerns or work towards consensus when you provide no information about what your concerns are?


 * Please do not remove maintenance templates (such as mergeto and fact ) without responding to the issue or, in case of something like merge proposal, allowing adequate time for discussion, (e.g. at least a week or two, remember wp:There is no deadline). Also, please explain reason for removal in edit summary.  Zodon (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please comment on content, not on users (WP:No personal attacks). e.g. your casting aspersions on my knowledge "You clearly have little knowledge of this topic as, ..."  is not appreciated.  (Especially since I did not suggest the merger that you say I did.)  Likewise your disparaging comments about other editor who you say "lacks credibility as an editor (see his edit history)" Zodon (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on sourcing Sustainability article
I have asked for opinions about using your book as a source on Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites and elsewhere. This is a concern because it was not disclosed that you are the author and the book is a capital concern. Here is the site where others will interpret this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Here is a link that may be interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-coi - skip sievert (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi GT, I hope you aren't finding all this as tiresome as I am. We are somewhere in the middle of this process which I suspect is an endless loop.  I barely have time to keep up with the discussion and haven't contributed to the article itself much, which I feel badly about (not to mention how i feel about  that diagram).--Travelplanner (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And hi Skip, yes this reference is from a reliable source.

Gardening wiki - sustainability section
Hi Granitethighs, I run a gardening wiki, and have a strong personal interest in sustainable living (which includes gardening of course) as well. I see you've literally written the book on it! I hope you'd be interested in contributing a bit to this gardening how-to wiki with an overview article on gardening sustainability, as well as some sub-articles. It would be great to have the whole topic approached from the ground up, replacing anything there already. Anyway, if you would be open to such an undertaking, any contributions you could make there would be greatly appreciated. The site is at http://www.plants.am - and I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'd also like to ask specifically if I could use the Glossary of botanical terms you put together here on the site. It's fantastic! Best, --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi GT, the relationship between the sites is only that they use the same mediawiki script, and Plants.am is using a bunch of Wikipedia articles (under the GFDL license) as placeholders until they are rewritten to the tailored needs of gardeners. I have explained this I hope clearly and in a bit more detail here: http://www.plants.am/wiki/Help:Contents#The_focus  - please read The Focus, and the next few paragraphs.  Articles will eventually look like this one for example, which is very different than the one on Wikipedia.  Let me know if that explains it, and if you have any other questions.  Thanks, --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

talk page topics and moving pages
On the talk pages it is usual to try to keep individual discussion topics separate, rather than responding to several different items under a regroup/recap. Such a summary would be fine if there were several different threads that converged, but usually easier to keep track of discussions and much easier to handle archiving if each section pretty much stands on its own. - e.g. if one has something to say about naming discussion, one does it under that heading, etc. (Also, if somebody is following one discussion but not interested in another, the revision history normally tells one which discussions have new content, so adding separate comments to each discussions makes history view clearer.) Not a big deal, just mentioning it for your consideration/etc.

I went ahead and did the rename - but for future reference, the move tab (at the top of the screen) is how it is done. However, see the instructions on moving WP:Move, since some types of moves should be discussed, and in some cases one has to request that an administrator do the move. Hope this helps. Zodon (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of sustainable living from article on sustainability
I will greatly appreciate if you can look at the following and please tell me why this personal essay is not suitable for wikipedia format? After all the whole concept of sustainable living implies personal examples. You might also look at other essays on the subject

All the best.

59.95.18.226 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi 59.95.18.226 - I understand your frustration, having often been the subject of similar treatment myself. Here's a few pointers:


 * 1. If you want to edit on Wikipedia I suggest you join the Wikipedia community: believe me it makes communication much easier.People with just IP addresses are often either being disruptive or just "trying it out" for fun and have no intention of editing seriously. I think that is unlikely in your case but that's just the way it is - if you dont identify yourself in some way you tend to be ignored.


 * 2. This article is undergoing revision by a team of people to reach Featured Article status. This means that the balance of sections, flow of presentation and ideas etc etc needs to be taken into consideration regardless of content. This means that at present slightly different rules apply to this article - which is proceeding by "collaborative editing".


 * 3. Because of 2 it would be a great help if you could place your proposed contribution on the talk page first for discussion by the "team" of editors. This is not normally necessary but because the article is heading for FA status that is currently the procedure.


 * 4. The form in which you entered your info was not the usual way it is presented in text.


 * 5. You could consider joining the editing team.

Again - all this might seem petty but with a team of editors at present in operation it makes for a more harmonious environment. Could you make a proposal on the discussion page before editing directly (and also make a commitment to WP by taking up a user address)? Hope to see more of you on Wikipedia. Granitethighs (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have now a name Ruralface. Since I am new to Wikipedia hence will appreciate your help.

Ruralface (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Atlas of Population and Environment
I was checking this citation in support of the following statement: "Long-term estimates of global population suggest a peak at around 2070 of nine to ten billion people, and then a slow decrease to 8.4 billion by 2100."

The citation takes one to the "Endnotes" page of the Atlas (not sure this was intended). However, I cannot find a statement elsewhere in the Atlas that supports the text quoted above. On the Trends page, the medium projection is stated thus: "The most recent long-range medium projection, based on the previous 1996 projection, had world population rising to 10.4 billion in 2100 and levelling out at just under 11 billion around 2200." Would you be able to take a look and see what is needed? Sunray (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations for journal articles
WP examples I've seen plus online directories don't usually capitalize journal article titles. Here's what WP:CITE/ES says about it: "Do not capitalize every word of the article title—only the first word, proper names, and the first word after a colon/period/dash." BTW WP:CITE/ES is a good source for clarification of WP guidelines. Sunray (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The preferred formate seems to be as follows:
 * Brandybuck, Meriadoc (1955). "Herb lore of the Shire." Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry 10(2), 234–351


 * Note that they bold the volume and issue and use a comma before page numbers (omitting pp.). Should we agree to standardize on this? That way we won't be undoing each other's work. :-) Picky stuff, no? Sunray (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing we might want to standardize is periods with quotes. The Chicago Manual of Style has the period inside of quotes. Oxford has it outside, but we seem to be following the American rather than Brit. convention for quotations. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine - we are both now singing from the same hymn sheet (so to say). I'll gradually work through the changes. Finding tne Christian name might be tricky - is that a must? Also the journal is not in italics - is that right? Just making sure we get it sorted. Happy to keep quotes American to save work. Granitethighs (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I would suggest we continue to use initials as we had been doing. Citing sources, which is the actual guideline (WP:CITE/ES is just a "help" page), gives examples using just initials. Also, the lack of ital for the journal was my transcription error.


 * Also I found an exception to the rule stated above about capitalization of journal articles. Some journals do capitalize, such as the one you just cited (Nemetz, P.N. (2003). "Basic Concepts of Sustainable Development for Business Students." Journal of International Business Education 1 (1). I guess we should go with the way the article appears (surely no one could fault us for that). Sunray (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all good. (As my young son says). Granitethighs (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Spoken like one of the "Millennial" generation. Mine says something similar: "It is what it is." Sunray (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Faced with the conflicting Brit and U.S. conventions, if I were a true Canadian, I would just go with whatever seemed simpler. But I started school in England, graduated high school in the U.S. and went to university in Canada, so I tend to have to follow some guideline to avoid existential confusion. :) Sunray (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was born in England, went to a Welsh University before moving to work in Australia. I guess I'm a bit confused too! Granitethighs (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More on citations
Hi GT: Footnotes # 93-97 for the Sustainability article were all added on the same day (by you?). They need more information to meet the criteria. While I could add the basic publication information, it looks like they should have page numbers. For example, with # 93, the link takes the reader to the topmost page of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with all the Chapters listed. This would make verification a pretty time consuming task, unless we link to the actual Chapter and cite the page number. Would you be able to help sort this out for this and similar citations? Sunray (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another one: Footnote # 110 takes one to a WBCSD page with several reports. Which one is the referenced report? Sunray (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Any that appear in a format like this:


 * 94. ^ [7] News item on Copenhagen Climate Congress in March 2009. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.
 * 95. ^ [8] News item from the Guardian newspaper, UK. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.


 * need further formatting. Sunray (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge
Philosophical schools include: Pythogorianism, Ecocentrism, Deep Ecology, Technocentrism, Anthropocentrism, Linguistic Philosophy, Physicalism ... and others? Granitethighs (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What page were you looking at? I've updated the projected outline at WikiProject Outline of knowledge.


 * Not sure if the movements (as movements) should be included under schools, or under the history of philosophy. Any comments?


 * And since they are schools too, they would still be included under schools.


 * By the way, I'm preparing to ramp up the development of the Outline of knowledge, by bringing it (and it's many outline pages) to the attention of the Wikipedia community at-large. This effort will include the posting of notices on the talk pages of hundreds of relevant articles and WikiProjects.  But before I can move forward with that, confusion must be prevented.  I'm surprised by how many editors don't even know what a hierarchical outline is.  Therefore, I've been writing a new article for "Outline".  It has turned into a major project, and I definitely need some help on it.  Any amount of time you could chip in on it would certainly be appreciated.


 * The Transhumanist 02:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy
I am probably asking a silly question that is answered somewhere obvious but ... how deeply will the hierarchical structure delve? For example willl there be a hierarchical set of categories for Geography and will each of these categories in turn have a hierarchical structure if it is useful? Granitethighs (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The question has not been answered anywhere yet. Thank you for pointing that out.  I should probably add it to that section, as well as to the outline guidelines that are currently being drafted.  There is no intrinsic limit on how deep the hierarchical structure will go.  However deep it goes, the lowest level entry(within the deepest outline) will likely be an article link.


 * In answer to your second question: yes. The projected outline and the OOK itself are subject to being improved via the standard wiki-way: editing.  As these are a table of contents system, they will go as deep as Wikipedia's coverage goes.  Feel free to improve them with hierarchical entries in any way you see fit.  If a problem results, other editors will further change them.  For example, RichardF just improved the Culture and arts section of the overall outline.  They look like improvements.  If they weren't ,we could of course go in and change them and/or discuss it out with him.  (Come to think of it, this means I need to update the projected outline with his changes.)


 * And the hierarchy will pass through connected outlines. Outline links have highest priority in outlines, so that each outline will lead to further outlines down the hierarchy.  Geography could go quite deep.  We've just found an outline on Cornwall, which is a county of England, so the hierarchy would flow through Outline of geography → Outline of Europe → Outline of the United Kingdom → Outline of England → Outline of Cornwall (though we haven't renamed nor converted List of England-related topics or List of topics related to Cornwall to our outline format yet).


 * I hope I've answered your questions satisfactorily.


 * The Transhumanist 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been exactly one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Common names
So, a happy wikibirthday to you Granitethighs! Thanks for your note about the changes I made to the common names article, and my comment on the talk page. If I have offended you, my apologies, and feel free to change what I did. I just replaced one small section of that deleted paragraph, although I may have put it in another place. Unfortunately I cannot spend a lot of time on re-structuring the article right now, as I have a rather large remainder of work to do on fixing CopyVio problems on gastropod articles, which is a very pressing priority that I have not got around to since coming back from a 3-week no-wiki trip about 10 days ago. I would be happy to have a go at trying to help reorganize and clarify the article at some point in the not too distant future though. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon Principles
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lisbon Principles, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sustainability governance. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut & Paste move of Sustainability governance
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting it into. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

In addition, please do not propose an article for deletion without indicating a reason, thank you.

--MLauba (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability and NPOV
Actually, the idea that there is no defensible doubt is hardly true. The very notion of sustainability is predicated on a series of assumptions that may (or may not) be true. In terms of natural resources, I would refer you to the following text: http://www.amazon.com/Poverty-Reason-Sustainable-Development-Economic/dp/0945999852. I would like you to place my edit back in. Neutrality requires that we acknowledge the limits of our own current state of knowledge and our complete ignorance of what technological improvements might bring to future generations. --AlexHorovitz (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability citations
Hi GT, haven't seen you around for awhile. As Finetooth observed, we do have some issues still with the references for the article. Apart from format issues (which I have been working on), we also have verification problems - cases of the citation not supporting the text. Here's one that I came across recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=300118616&oldid=300116889

In this case, the citation said cryptically " e-digest environment statistics." I've fleshed out the citation. However, the problem is that I cannot find the word "dematerialisation" (the subject of that section) on that website. I can tell that there are other situations like this. I think that we should clean this up before the next peer review. I will work away at it, but as you added many of the citations, would you be willing to lend a hand? Ta, Sunray (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replied here. Sunray (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability peer review
Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; has agreed to do a peer review. Right off the top he noticed that we didn't complete all of Finetooth's recommendations, and, in particular, asked why we still had infoboxes in the body text of the article in a comment on my talk page. I've removed the infoboxes for now, but we should talk about alternative approaches. Sunray (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to take a look at Ruhrfisch's comments about the peak oil box? Sunray (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Sunray (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation
It appears that it was unhelpful of me to falsify your contribution by example and levity. Content is the product of reliable sources, not the outcome of debate. Apologies for giving that impression, by engaging you in that way, I hope this clarifies matters:
 * I can't cite your unpublished opinion!

I have bookmarks to numerous sources that support my asssertions. Even by fulfilling the request, the very name of the talk page section, by finding a source that you feel concurs with your position will probably be a waste of our time. cygnis insignis 11:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ash (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Silent Spring
After I'd done it, it occurred to me that my action (in removing that image) might have seemed a tad peremptory. I was referring to Rhurfish's comment here. I rather like the image (nice colour), but it doesn't add much, really. I don't understand copyright law all that well, so it may be fairly simple to come up with a rationale. However, I do note that images of books are fairly restricted under fair use rules. Hence my question, do we need it?


 * The pic was in the public domain in the Silent Spring article. I lifted it thinking it would be OK - but maybe that is not polite. I added it in the history section because it seemed more appropriate as the "book that influenced millions" in thinking about sustainability-related issues. However, I'm not fussed, its OK to leave it out, especially as it came from another article. Granitethighs (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are invariably polite, I find. However, it is not only a matter of politesse. If it is in the public domain, we have to have a rationale for it on the file page. Right now the rationale speaks only of fair use, which, at least in American law, is more restricted. I do like the image, so if, between us, we can muster the rationale, I would be delighted. Sunray (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Philosophy of Naming
I will not argue with a philosophical valid position, but I would like to clarify that of my own. Yes, I was suggesting that what you expect to see (that bears a name in a theory) you are more likely to see as a naïve observer. The naïve observer is unaware of the possibility of being duped. This is the premise of the argument.

Cognitive psychological studies on inattentional blindness and change blindness indicate that a large portion of research participants may not notice that the environment is changing while their attention is preoccupied with another task, and that the participants will rationalize their choice of a picture over another, when they had in fact chosen the other picture. These findings support that the notion of a naïve observer is sustainable. However, there are exceptions to data trends. That is why I emphasize the likelihood of observation failure.

Theory does not underlie perception, I agree. Object recognition is a prerequisite for naming known objects. If the objects are not known, they are not recognized. To name something that is not recognized – which is central to the development of nomenclature – the object is categorized into an existent category or a new category. However, new categories are dependent upon other categories that we are already familiar with. In philosophy of science this assumption can be exemplified by theory reduction. For example: molecular theory [H2O] reduces theory of elements [water]).

Word categorization, a mental process, is a prerequisite for naming new stuff. Word categorization results in a semantic network. Semantic networks explain word association (e.g. particle, energy, light, mass, speed of light). I believe that the semantic networks of our minds can be fed by theories. I don’t think, however, that they correspond to theories. Furthermore, I believe that psychological processing of words may be influenced by theories, due to association and family resemblance. Now, a good scientific theory should include explanation in addition to description – an act of ostension and naming – but this is not always the case. For example, fibromyalgia can be described within a theoretical framework, although it has not been explained.

I am not saying that what we are seeing is a theory, but rather: What we have in our minds may influence how we perceive the world. This returns to your original question.

To summarize, theories are constructed based on observation and observation is a mental phenomenon (i.e. it is subjective, which is why scientists demand replicability and peer review to attain objectivity). However, observation may be influenced (biased) toward various word categories. That an architect views the world different from a fire-fighter is due to what he knows, which is represented mentally in semantic networks. Imagine a person in a primitive culture who knows about the rabbit but has never seen a duck. Would he be able to interpret the illustration in both ways? Semantic networks are influenced by attaining knowledge. Some knowledge can be ordered systematically into theories.

The beautiful conclusion is that scientists, as well as other academics, must be aware of bias. That is one of the main reasons science is concerned about objectivity.

Finally, idealism is a concept applied to the status of the world or existence. It has little to do with how we represent the world. What is “given” to our senses may not be real, but there is always something there in the external word – whether it be ideas or substance – to be represented in our minds.

Sorry for filling up your talk page. Thanks for inviting an interesting discussion! Ostracon (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC


 * You're most welcome. I suppose that to every meaningful question there's a meaningful answer. You're asking the right questions!Ostracon (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent e-mail from Alan
I've responded to Alan's e-mail on his talk page. Sunray (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nomenclator (nomenclature)


The article Nomenclator (nomenclature) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:DICTDEF (already heavily reliant on wiktionary so no need to transwiki), also weird article title (what does the "nomenclature" disambiguator term mean?)

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DMacks (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK  Granitethighs  06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sustenance
Sustenance for the long travail. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You haven't been named in this recently-filed request for arbitration but may wish to be included Requests for arbitration

The following may be of use
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

I know you're more interested in editing articles, but perhaps you could consider this as an investment of time, it seems that finally we are in a forum where it is the norm for things to actually happen rather than endless circular discussions. --Travelplanner (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Template problem
The brackets for Andrea Caesalpino and Gaspard Bauhin were not closed, ie, you had entered the left brackets "Geronimo20 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops... I inadvertently transpose data from one group to another. Sorry about that. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

History of botany
Great to see this important article! Small point: you say "He (Theophrastus) was bequeathed Aristotle's garden at the Lyceum". This seems not to be correct. See (full reference at Botanical_garden), 4th page, 3rd para. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What a fabulous reference Peter - thanks a million, I'll put that right.  Granitethighs   22:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You might consider adding a reference to Goethe's scientific work, in particular Metamorphosis of Plants, in the history of morphology. His conclusion that plants had three fundamental parts (roots, stems and lateral appendages) is described by Sporne, The morphology of angiosperms, 1974 (from which I first learnt plant morphology) on p44 as the foundation of the 'classical theory' of plant morphology. However, I realise that the article is quite long already. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Peter I'll put him in - there seems some debate about the solidity of his contribution ... but there is no doubt that he stimulated both discussion and research.  Granitethighs   22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Botanic garden
User:Granitethighs/Sandbox3 is a fantastic re-draft; very impressive! (The link you put on my talk page was wrong; probably true of the others you placed as well.)

If I were a picky Wikilawyer, I'd say there's some WP:SYNTH, but I think it's actually necessary to make sense of this disparate subject. I've done a little more research myself on the topic, but I suspect I couldn't add much to what you have. The only thing that occurs to me is that there is more that could be said about the relationship between botanic gardens and European empires: there are 'positive' sources and 'negative' ones. Whether this is worth adding I'm not sure, but it has been a live issue in some quarters – e.g. the question of whether European countries owe reparation for 'ethnobotany' which they 'stole'. I'll try to draft a paragraph if I have time and you can see what you think.

On a related topic, have you more or less finished with History of botany? There's a little bit of copy-editing I'd like to do. Also, for both History of botany and Botanical garden, I would like to see the references 'linked'. I like the style you use, i.e. separating Notes from Bibliography (actually I think it should be References and Bibliography), but it's useful if the two are linked. See James Eustace Bagnall for how I think it should work: you should be able to click on a 'note' and be taken to the corresponding 'reference'. I'm willing to try to edit both pages to achieve this when there're stable. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've converted the references so that the Notes link to the Bibliography. I think this is especially helpful when there are so many. Hopefully I haven't introduced any errors!
 * Note 41 just consists of a page number. What is the rest of it?
 * In your Bibliography, you had Hortus Third twice; I've removed one of them.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)



I've subbed the article and left comments on its talk page. I imagine there still remain minor slips, but my main subbing session is now done. Best wishes, Happy Christmas. Si Trew (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A slightly belated well done for getting this to GA review, you've done a lot of hard work there. I've had my first GA, at Old Rouen Tramway – just a translation, but in spite of that, or perhaps because of it, I'm quite pleased to get it to GA. Si Trew (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt the tramway would get to FA because all the references in French and I don't have much chance of getting hold of them to check them, there are probably subtle errors in translation (and perhaps major ones) too. I only translated it because it was a Requested Article at WikiProject France, but not much has happened with it since (i.e. not much other editor input), which is a little surprising aas although WikiProject France seems en grands vacances wikitrains is usually quite active.


 * But Botanical garden should go for FA, surely? I'll lend any hand I can there. As you know, I am no expert in the subject, but sometimes that can be a bonus i.e. innocent eyes.


 * I translated a couple of stubs from French on botanical artists lately. Not much to say there, but if there are others I might have a go at translating a more substantial one. Any requests?

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I was a bit hasty and grumpy yesterday. Your version is a vast improvement and I was being too picky. Sorry. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you kind comments. I think that the article could make WP:FAC, but not just yet. Whilst I'm happy that its now a good GA, it needs more work and definitely a WP:PR before WP:FAC: but you've certainly done a good job in bringing it up to this level and it could go further. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of -onym
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is -onym. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/-onym. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation Tool
I've now tidied up the tool I wrote for myself to assist with creating linking refs and citations. See User:Peter_coxhead/Citation_Tool_Help, which links to the tool itself. Any feedback will be useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jobling ref in Spencer surname
Hello, I had added a fact tag on that Spencer surname piece, and you supplied that excellent Jobling article from Trends in Genetics. Very good reading. Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean my comments at the Spencer surname page to come off as abrupt. I've had a touch of the flu and have been a little short. In any case, I think we can attribute that coat-of-arms to the Spencers of Althorp. I'll look into some more tomorrow when I'm up and about. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, just wanted to pass these two links along. They're not really 'citeable,' but they are on-topic, and I thought you might find them interesting. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to reply before now. The Spencer arms attribution looks good now. Take care. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One other thing I wanted to point out. The Dictionary of American Family Names, published by the esteemed Oxford University Press, ascribes the origins of the surname as follows: "English: occupational name for someone employed in the pantry of a great house or monastery, from Middle English spense ‘larder’ + the agent suffix -er." Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination
Hi. I added some notes on the talk page of Spencer (surname) in reference to the GA nomination. I didn't realize you've been at Wikipedia for a while so pardon my comments about checking the WP:MoS as I'm sure you're very familiar with it. Best. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

GAN on hold
Hello Granitethighs! I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for about 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 comment 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. Good luck! Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I had to fail the article today since nothing has been done since I put it on hold. Consider working on the issues at hand before nominating it again. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pierre-Joseph Redouté
There's not much more in the French, but I'll "merge" in a translation of any relevant bits. I'll let you know when I'm done. I'll see if I can cull anything from the other languages too, but my Luxembourgish is a bit rusty...

One nice thing about the French WP is pretty much all the pics are already on Commons. With Hungarian WP, they are almost always on the Hungarian WP itself, and I so hate moving them over. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got in as much as I can from the French Wikipédia. There's not much more on the others - mostly translations either from the English or French, by the looks of it. Two different portraits at (if I remember rightly) the German and Italian WPs. The Luxembourgish Wikipedia has some fact about 1840 (his death I imagine), I think the place he died in Paris, but I am not sure. Trust me to joke about Luxembourgish then find it's the only one apart from French with something new in (perhaps Japanese but I long ago forgot how to read that).


 * The section around the time of the Revolution is a bit mixed up, the information in French and English WPs is not exactly conflicting but it's a bit of a guess exactly what happened first in some cases.


 * I've put in infobox and some other general subbing. There's not really anything by way of inline citations.


 * Oh well, one step farther. Si Trew (talk)


 * Yes, I didn't really know what to do with the bibliography. I'd like to put it in more standard templates, but some won't fit, when they say "in 8 volumes" and so on. You're quite good at that kind of thing, so you might have some bright ideas. There's also one that is referenced, but actually the reference is to the work as a work, and not as a reference, so it should probably be cut. Then the article is unreferenced, or at least lacks inline citations.


 * I had a quick search in my local library catalogue (Cambridgeshire) but nothing came up. The Cambridge University Botanic Garden might have something, I suppose. (That article could do with expansion, too).


 * I also added a stub for the school named after him, which is almost as interesting as anything I have ever learned about Belgium. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way I divined that the Luxembougish entry is for where he is buried, so I added that, and added him to the relevant article for that cemetary. I've added him to a few other lists too. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

History of Botany
Again I have criticised History of Botany. Although I do think this criticism has merit, I do not like the tone in what I have written. It is difficult to criticise without sounding critical. I would like to add therefore, that this is really a very nice article. --Ettrig (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cultivated plant taxonomy
I've finished a more thorough review Talk:Cultivated plant taxonomy/GA1. Looking a lot better than before. Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Environmental history
The article Environmental history you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Environmental history for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Johannis Browall
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)