User talk:Hamamelis/2009/First half of 2009

2009 ARCHIVE : All threads begun before July 2009 are here preserved in their entirety
 *  First half of 2009 (Jan - Jun) <<<--- YouAreHere
 * half of 2009 Second half of 2009 (Jul - Dec)
 * B A C K  to   T A L K

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a message for Drilnoth: Hi, The reason for the text removal ("Manticore") on my part was that it appeared to be entered twice on the same list (once just before the entry for "Mummy", and once again immediately after...that is, there is the first entry for Manticore, the Mummy entry, then a second entry for Manticore) and this appeared to be redundant and an error. The only differences between the two individual entries is 1.) the second entry specifies 'white box', and 2.) that it is out of place, alphabetically speaking. I can surmise the possibility that there is a good reason for this, and if so the error is mine and thank you for correcting it. But if this is the case, please explain it to me. I don't have a copy of the Monster Manual handy (it's buried in my garage somewhere), so I can't check it against this list, but I don't believe there are two entries for Manticore on page 29. Also, I had specified my reason in the Edit Summary for my edit. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have (correctly) reinstated the edit you made. Your two points are both correct, but this is not why Drilnoth reverted your edit.  For whatever reason, your edit removed about 70% of the page when you saved it. (To verify this, look at the history of the page and follow the link to the edit you produced.  Most of the page is missing, starting after the "Gray Ooze" entry in the second section of the page.)  It's good practice to always preview your edits before saving them, and to check them afterwards to confirm they did what you thought they did. It's also helpful to edit by section, rather than by the entire page, since this limits the damage caused by typos and "fatfingers".  Welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy your stay.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

.

Re: Deletion from User Page
Hi, could you please provide a link to the page? Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Juliancolton for your quick response. The link to the page-that-was is User_Glbl-Wrmng.


 * Ah, I see. I simply moved the page to User:Hamamelis/Glbl-Wrmng, which is the correct namespace, and deleted the redirect. The content remains undeleted. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dust bowl edits
Thanks for informing me - your changes sound good here. I don't know much about the subject; I only watch the article in case of vandalism, and your edits certainly did not fall under that category. Graham 87 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Article review
I would like to help, but Plants (Just a joke:Plant's) aren't my subject. Why don't you try to find someone here Plants. Bernstein2291 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I would be happy to help you with your plant article, I have written a number of them. First of all there really is no specific process for making an article, and at Wikipedia one of the principles is to BE BOLD. You have some good (very well cited) information here and have found some nice pictures. But the main issues I see at first glance is the basic Wikipedia formatting. I have done some basic markup cleanup for you here. Here's list of what I did, I hope you don't mind (you can always revert it).
 * 1. Get rid of font changes except for TM. Typically article all use the same standard default font, and the "Font" tags can get away from you pretty quick to make the fonts and heading crazy pretty quickly.
 * 2. Use your "general" section to as a lead, which all articles must have.
 * 3. Use the picture gallery function to arrange you pictures instead of a table which I find hard to format.
 * 4. Rearrange sections so the list is at the end, and move the citation conflict note to a "hidden comment"
 * 5. Use standard format for taxoboxes.


 * It looks different now but really I really didn't do much, and most of what I did just takes advantage of the tool bar above the composer window. Let me know if I can help anymore. I think you are ready to categorize it and move it to the main space. I will nominate it as a DYK article on the Main page if you tell me when you publish it. It is a nice little article. Peace Earthdirt (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Great job on getting the article to main space, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner with category info. I am glad User:KP Botany stepped in, I actually thought he left Wiki, which would have sucked because he's definitely the most helpful person in Project Plants. As I said, I have gone ahead and nominated it as a DYK. Let me know if you need help with anything else. Earthdirt (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Bad news, surprisingly it looks like your article won't make it to the main page via DYK at this point, unless you want to do a bit of work on it that is (you have a couple more days before your 5 days expires. The reviewer basically had and issue with the large number of footnotes you used (I have never seen anyone have a problem with that before). I do think you may have a bit many, it was actually a bit hard for me to edit it because there were so many citations. You can read our discussions about the  here.

Here are some suggestions for future article citations if you are interested: 1. Plant physically descriptions don't need cited, they are common knowledge 2. cultivars/varieties/subspecies don't need cited except maybe as a list unless they have some "unique" property which you are pointing out. 3. Keep citations to a minimum in the lead unless you are giving some unique or controversial or very specific (i.e. endangered in...) fact in the lead. 4. No need for more than one or two per sentence usually and you don't need to provide multiple sources (or reuse sources) unless you really need the added support (i.e. people have a problem with it). 5. Lastly, and least important, the least preferred citation format in Wikipedia is a raw url, try to provide a more standard citation format using the title, publisher, author, date, etc. (I added a couple to the article which you can look at if you like, there are more complex citation templates which are better, but I find them unwieldy)

Hope this helps. Let me know if you revise it or need any assistance with anything else. Peace...Earthdirt (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you couldn't read the discussion, this page is always long. Here is the discussion if you are interested, maybe you can see it here. For the record I was hoping to see your first article make a DYK, it's good. Earthdirt (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cotoneaster salicifolius

 * ... that willow-leaved cotoneaster (Cotoneaster salicifolius) is a woody plant which is native to Western China, with over 30 cultivars which range from tiny groundcovers to large shrubs?

Created by Hamamelis (talk). nom by Earthdirt (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg This article is too short, being only 1326 characters when the minimum is 1500 characters. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added 400+ characters of prose (not counting spaces). Please reassess, thanks. Earthdirt (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg This has not been expanded five-fold in the last five days. On March 11 it was 1214 characters; now it is 1824 characters. A five-fold increase would be 6,070 characters. Further, there is an abnormal number of footnotes. One sentence in the lede alone has 11, with the three sentence lede altogether having 22 footnotes. The rest of the article has too many to count. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a new article, it was moved to from a new user's sandbox on March 22 using the move function here, I don't think we can count its creation as an article until it makes it to the main article space. I agree about the citations, I think the editor has had some people reverting his unreferenced edits in other articles and wanted to avoid that here on his first new article. I just went in to try and remove/move the citations from the lead (as you don't need to cite a plant's physical description), but they are reused so many times I gave up. There are so many citations I actually found it difficult to edit/expand it yesterday. I am not sure there is any policy against being too verifiable, is there? I hope you will overlook the excessive citations and get this guy's article in the DYK (either way I will let him know that he should avoid this in the future). Thanks for your consideration. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible to have too many footnotes. There are readability issues with too many footnotes. Further, if possible, only put footnotes at the end of sentences so as not to break up the flow of the text. Generally, the lede does not need footnotes, as everything in the lede should be expanded upon in the text with references there.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article space
Why isn't your article in article space? It's fine as is, and a new article bot will put it in the new plants articles listing, watched by plants editors, and other editors will edit it as needed. Maybe you're wanting to make it a DYK? Let me know what your plans are, and I will help you edit. --KP Botany (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here copy and paste this onto the bottom of the page and move that puppy out into article space:
 * Then copy and past this
 * onto the article's talk page after you move the article to create the talk page. User:Hesperian will categorize it, but generally go to another plant of the same genus and copy and paste its categories to the bottom of the new article you've created.  If there are none, categorize it to the plant family,  and Hesperian or someone else will correct it when it comes up on new articles, and User:Rkitko will take care of the talk page ratings.
 * Good work. Write more, and worry less, because, even if you write well and produce more articles as nicely done and useful as this people will still find something to freak on you about, like not getting the article out into article space soon enough.
 * Oh, to move, click on the move tab on top of the article in your sandbox, and, it will give you a box that says "To new title" and will list the same title, namely your sandbox. Delete that title from the box completely and replace with Cotoneaster salicifolius.  As your reason type in something like, "New article from sandbox to article space."  After you've done this your article will appear and there will be a red-linked talk page, click on that, and add the above into its edit box, and then enter it.  --KP Botany (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. Now other editors will edit it, add to it, etc.  I've found my articles are generally improved by the process of additional input, although I do not spend a lot of time in user space before rolling them out.  --KP Botany (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, to move, click on the move tab on top of the article in your sandbox, and, it will give you a box that says "To new title" and will list the same title, namely your sandbox. Delete that title from the box completely and replace with Cotoneaster salicifolius.  As your reason type in something like, "New article from sandbox to article space."  After you've done this your article will appear and there will be a red-linked talk page, click on that, and add the above into its edit box, and then enter it.  --KP Botany (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. Now other editors will edit it, add to it, etc.  I've found my articles are generally improved by the process of additional input, although I do not spend a lot of time in user space before rolling them out.  --KP Botany (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cotoneaster salicifolius

 * Congrats that rocks! I can't imagine fixing all those refs without a copy and paste function. I was pretty stoaked to see Maittese help you out with the ref. Wikipedia rocks! Don't hesitate to contact me if you ever want to collaborate in the future or need something nominated to the DYK (since you can't read the page). BTW: I found all the stuff I added on efloras and by doing a google scholar search. They are both nice tools for plant article, often I use GRIN a USDA database which has some good links for sources as well. Peace Earthdirt (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sandbox6B
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. otisjimmy1 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Never-mind my response on you talk page, I figured out the answer to the problem I posed to you. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk)

Sanboxes
I've moved your recently created sandboxes back into your userspace. Please make sure not to create them in mainspace from now on. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra mess
Thanks for letting me know. I have commented there and have moved the Australasian Bushlark to Horsfield's Bushlark - but perhaps it should be moved to Horsfield's Bush Lark. Will post on WT:BIRD. You should join WP:BIRD. Good luck. Shyamal (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Flora Fauna list on page Orissa
Hi Hamamelis

Nice to see your contribution to the list of flora/fauna in the page 'Orissa', but I would think that for there is no need of a bulleted list for this. they can be in the same line separated by commas. Moreover, instead of a full list, mention of the important ones should suffice. Hope you agree. �"Preceding unsigned comment added by Asitmonty (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for dropping by. I seldom know whom I'm correcting. I know what you mean about there being certain words that are your personal devil. Many times I have to check the spelling of a word to make sure I'm correcting it correctly.

Thanks, too, for the new word. Can't seem to get enough of them :) LilHelpa (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for your comments on the talk page for the article Mole (animal)! Chrisrus (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nom de guerre (band)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nom de guerre (band), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Nom de guerre. 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) 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)