User talk:Kingdon/Archive 2

Issues and non-issues
Having good people around was never an issue.... Hi! --KP Botany (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tumbleweeds
Hi. Take a look at Tumbleweed (diaspore); does moving Tumbleweed (disambiguation) to the base name  now make more sense to you? --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, but I'm pretty sick of the whole thing by now. Kingdon (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible DC Meetup
Some editors are planning a possible DC Wiki-meetup in mid to late February. If interested, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 5 (If you’re no longer interested in getting these notices, please remove your name from Meetup/DC 5.)  Thanks. — Satori Son 16:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art: DC
See:Wikipedia Loves Art

The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be having a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. (Note: The SAAM is located in between Metro Center and Gallery Place (closer to the Gallery Place/Chinatown metro), and is convenient to all 5 metro lines.) &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing behaviour at Babesia article
Hi. I note that you have made some substantive contributions to the Babesia article. This page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. (I am not an expert in this area.) Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references. I don’t understand why. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?

Appreciate your insight at the article talk page. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing and asking; I've responded there. Kingdon (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And thanks for your response. I figure we keep the discussion going for a while longer, to try to reach consensus.  But if no one else has a solution, it's down to us.  Let's see. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Green algae, surely they belong ....
Maybe the Charophytes, but usually I get reverted when I add a WikiProject plants tag to green algae articles (do more Chlorophyta, though, and that may be the issue). --KP Botany (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just going with my vague recollection of what we talked about at WT:PLANTS a long time ago. If it were my own opinion, my instinct would be to group green algae with other algae (brown, red, probably even cyanobacteria), although that is ecology and scientific specialization at least as much as phylogeny. Since most of the other potential wikiprojects are largely inactive, it is hard to know. Kingdon (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's hard to figure it out. I would keep the Charophyta and put the rest elsewhere, but I would probably redo all the upper level groupings along the lines of Cavalier-Smith.  It's so much in flux, that I tend not to be concerned, plus our Wikipedia articles are bad in those areas.  --KP Botany (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't take anything Cavalier-Smith publishes as gospel; he proposes so many things that he is wrong as often as he is right (I could probably think of various examples but the first that springs to mind is the non-monophyly of Chromalveolata, at least if circumscribed to include haptophytes and exclude Rhizaria). He tends to overemphasize the results of one single-gene analysis, for one thing. Kingdon (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing about Cavalier-Smith and Woese and Margulis is they are the ones looking at the higher order relationships, which are in serious need of rearrangement--as even some single-gene analyses have shown. The emphasis tends to be less on the photosyhthetic end of the spectrum (sorry, irresistible), though.  He makes me think, they all do, and reconsider how the world got to be as I know it, and is it really as I know it?  When I read the lower order taxonomies, and their rearrangements courtesy of multi-gene analyses, I say, oh, yeah, of course. But when I read one of C-T's 67 page monographs, I keep asking myself, and what about that and that and this, also.  Whether I agree with anything he says or not.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Cavalier-Smith accepts paraphyletic taxa (e.g. Choanozoa), which puts him at odds with a lot of people. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The 7th DC Meetup
Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. We need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name [ here]. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Goodonya for your comment to the Ipomoea person. Hesperian 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing. Always nice to look at someone's contributions and find (basically) sound work, rather than just a bunch of things to complain about. Kingdon (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kochia scoparia
Hi. I expanded Kochia scoparia from a stub; there's a lot more info that could go into the article. --Una Smith (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A reply:
Kingdon: Having Received your message today. It's nice to hear from someone on every day's wiki.

All The Best and see you on Wiki. Jero Smith Ju (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about bibliography articles
Hi Kingdon,

I know you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic and thought you might be interested in participating here.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal
Hi Kingdon,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

nucleariids
While I'd agree with the exclusion of nucleariids (and ministeriids) from Choanozoa, if I recall correctly Cavalier-Smith introduced the term for all opisthokonts that aren't fungi or animals. (I'd restrict the term to Choanoflagellata, Mesomycetozoa, and capsasporids.)

However, the class given (Cristidiscoidea) seems to be even more dubious - that seems to be a polyphyletic group, consisting of nucleariids (sister to fungi), ministeriids (sister to animals), and fonticulids (amoebozoans). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with leaving nucleariids out of Choanozoa (although if pressed, I'd have to go back and re-read which papers define it this way. Probably the Shalchian-Tabrizi et al paper, for one).


 * As for Cristidiscoidea, I didn't research that (nor do I remember seeing it in any of the papers). At least for now, I've removed it.


 * As for Ministeria and Capsaspora (which I presume is your ministeriids and capsasporids), I think we better call those incertae sedis within opisthokonts or at least waffle about whether they are in the right place - there is evidence on the point but it is all pretty recent and unconfirmed. Kingdon (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The paper I've seen on Capsaspora is Ruiz-Trillo et al, Capsaspora owczarzaki is an independent opisthokont lineage, Current Biology 14(22): R946-R947 (2004). That places it fairly solidly is Choanozoa, but, of course, one has to be cautious about accepting the results of a single study, especially at that depth. The latter Steenkamp et al, The Protistan Origins of Animals and Fungi, Mol. Biol. Evol. 23(1): 93-106 (2006) has a paraphyletic Choanozoa. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see from your recent edits that fonticulids have now been moved from Amoebozoa to Opisthokonta, which makes Cristidiscoidea a bit more sensible than it previously appeared. However, I'd be tempted to keep fonticulids separate from nucleariids - the slime-mould habit, and the sister group relationship, seem adequate reasons to draw Nucleariida narrowly. But my opinion is as much original research as yours. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm usually a big fan of being pretty tentative about brand-new results which haven't been confirmed (the lack of a close relationship between Fonticula and the more familiar slime molds had been known, or at least suggested, for several decades, but an affinity with Nuclearia is just that one 2009 paper, as far as I know). I've made a stab at waffle-wording the nucleariid page to accomodate either your original research or mine :-). I'm more worried about Rabdiophrys and friends; the treasure hunt which led me to Fonticula was originally trying to track down Rabdiophrys but I didn't find much about its phylogeny (and if memory serves the classifications for Rotosphaerida before, say, 2005 seemed to admit polyphyly or at least not try to test it). Kingdon (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding anything obvious about the other 3 genera either, but Google tells me that their putative association with Nuclearia is mentioned in the Fonticula paper (but as the paper is paywalled I can't check what it is said in context). It also reminds me that Vampyrellidium is suspected of being a nucleariid. (The Vampyrellidae article could do with a list of genera - Theratromyxa would seem to be one.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A secondary source - Lavateraguy (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

species->genus
Replied on my talk page. PamD (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
--NBahn (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
 * Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

Pseudoryzomys FAC
Hi, would you have time to have another look at the FAC for Pseudoryzomys? The article has seen some changes since you last commented and I'd like to know whether you have any more comments. Thanks, Ucucha 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The more times I read it, the harder it is for me to look at it with a fresh eye (in terms of things like whether the prose reads easily or gets bogged down). But in terms of the more concrete things (images and what-not), you've done a good job fixing the things I brought up.  Thanks for all the good work on this article. Kingdon (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand - the same thing happens to me when I read an article I wrote for the nth time. Thanks for having a look. Ucucha 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cladoboxes
Hi, thanks, I didn't know you could do that with the cladograms (ref:Onocleaceae. I will follow that model from now on; constructing them graphically in ArcView is a royal pain in the ass.  Btw, I appreciate the classification of Smith for the ferns, BUT he did that before a lot of additional cladistic analysis was done, and there are significant changes that need to be made in his classification even if you suppress the classification level to families.  An extremely important paper is by Eric Schuettpelz and Kathleen Pryer, part of Schuettpelz' doctoral thesis, that genetically analyzed 400 species of ferns using three gene loci, as opposed to the single locus that's so often done. jaknouse (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Template:clade is not perfect (unless something has changed, there are cases where it lays things out kind of funny, as discussed at Template talk:clade), but it is better than images. You might want to try to figure out how to delete the image cladogram (I don't really know the commons processes, but on wikipedia it would be easier if the author is the one making the deletion request).
 * As for the Schuettpelz thesis, I'd be surprised if it differs a lot from Smith 2006 (in the words of the thesis, "It should be noted that my results, in large part, have already been incorporated into a modern revision of fern classification (Smith & al., 2006b); therefore, this classification (followed below) is consistent with my phylogeny, with only a few exceptions." (pages 10–11). I think the question here is not the phylogeny, but whether the order Polypodiales corresponds to the clade which Schuettpelz calls "polypods" or one of the smaller clades (I think "eupolypods I" would be a choice which would allow Blechnales to be recognized and all taxa to be monophyletic but I'm not sure of all the details, and in any event it matters what the botanists are doing not what I think). My main concern here is wanting at least a modicum of consistency between the taxobox classification we use in the various articles (well, and also consistency between wikipedia and the rest of the world, but that can be a bit more elusive).  I think wikipedia pretty much uses the broad Polypodiales currently.
 * Thanks for the talk page note. Kingdon (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Algae
WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Pteridophytes
WikiProject Pteridophytes has been started for improving and coordinating work on the strict Pteridophyta (Monilophytes) and the Lycopodiophyta. Please participate if you are interested. jaknouse (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pottingeria
I am the one who wrote Unplaced in APG II. I finally saw what you had written on the talk page. I was happy to see that you created an article for Pottingeria. 128.171.106.252 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I get around to it, I might do some more. (Although probably not soon, so I'd encourage anyone with the time/interest to go for it). Kingdon (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unplaced in APG II
My understanding is that the APG sees the succession of papers (1998, 2003, 2009) as the incremental development of a system, rather than as setting out three different systems (APG, APG II and APG III). This is how I've written the expansion of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group article. So, in my view, rather than expanding material related to APG II, we should really be reducing it, pointing out that it's now mainly of historic interest, and instead cross-referencing to APG III. I'd like to know other editors' views on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the material is particularly interesting because it is related to APG II, but I think much of it is interesting for articles on the particular genera/species/families involved (that is, what does the research say about the affinities, not so much when it was discovered). In most cases the family/species/genus articles don't have the material which is now at Unplaced in APG II. Kingdon (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * About the material at the family/genus/species level, I agree entirely. My point was that the article Unplaced in APG II itself is now of extremely limited importance (and should probably disappear in the future).


 * More generally, the pace of change in phylogenetic research is causing problems across a whole range of articles, which struggle to keep up or which fail to present a fair reflection of the diverse views currently held in some areas. I don't have a magic solution, but I believe that in some cases being bold is called for in terms of wholesale revision/replacement. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

 * You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
 * Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Taxoboxes
I note that you put back the subgroups in the taxobox for Archaeplastida. I agree that it's good to have links in taxoboxes where possible, but I'm doubtful that it's sensible here. This relates to the discussion at Talk:Chromalveolate, I think. At present articles on the top level groups of the eukaryotes can only reflect the current lack of consensus. What has happened on a number of pages is that the taxobox refers to a classification which is directly contradicted by the article, because of the difficulty in keeping them in step. The principle of avoiding redundancy suggests to me that it's better not to put classification details into a taxobox until we can be reasonably sure that it will be stable for some time. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a contradiction with the article in this case. The article mentions the same groups that are/were in the taxobox, as far as I can tell. I don't see any mention of Hacrobia in the body of the article. If you want, you could add "possibly Hacrobia" or "possibly others" or something. Kingdon (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't implying that there was a contradiction in the article (yet!); only that because the classification of eukaryotes is unstable at present, it's safer for the relevant taxoboxes to say "see the article". Of course, if you can guarantee to edit the taxobox(es) of the main eukaryote subgroups to keep up with changes in the articles, then fine. :-) If you want to start somewhere, the most confusing (and inconsistent) taxobox at present, in my view, is Eukaryote. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken a stab at eukaryote. We'll see what happens. Sometimes this kind of edit sets off a whole bunch of tweaking, perhaps even controversy and reverts, but more often there is no apparent reaction. Kingdon (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My attempt was immediately reverted. Sounds like it would require more talk page discussion to get something going on this, and I have no plans to work on it. Kingdon (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Old chestnut
Hi Kingdon,

In case it's not on your watchlist, please see Talk:Penstemon haydenii for an update to a problem you spotted (two and a half years ago!). Your further input would be appreciated. Hamamelis (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/DC 11
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was so late, no problem that you didn't attend. We are doing our first workshop at the Smithsonian on Thursday (see WP:GLAM/SI/Events) and we should start planning one soon for early September! If you are interested in pursuing help with the Botanic's department independent of the workshops, that would be awesome! Keep us informed at WP:GLAM/SI about what is going on and if you need any help! Thanks for the support, Sadads (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.

—NBahn (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

Unicode anomaly
Hi, I created this anomaly thing, and "U+2118 ℘​ script capital p" was in in there first. Re Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols: your idea on putting in references in the blank cells is OK (I needed time to change my thinking). Meanwhile, I ran into an editor who opposed this sandbox and preferred Template:Unicode chart Counting Rod Numerals (tough talk here). So I agree, but there might be opposition. -DePiep (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'm not really sure I want to jump into all of those issues, so I think I'll just make a generic reference to Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines and leave it at that. Kingdon (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C. Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
 * Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
 * Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
 * Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
 * Details & RSVP:  Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Viruses is back
Hello, We at WikiProject Viruses noticed that you used to be a participant of the project before the project went inactive. We would like to take this opportunity to invite you to become a participant of WikiProject Viruses again. We believe that viruses are an extremely important part of an encyclopedia, and that is why we need you! Our new project coordinator is. We hope you seriously consider our invitation. See you there. If you are interested in joining our crew again, please place a notice on Our Talkpage, or you will be removed from our participants list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Revision to a citation
I saw your edit summary here, but I'm not sure we're both on the same page. I was referencing the Veterinary Dictionary as it was reputed in the Free Dictionary. Since I have no access to the Veterinary Dictionary, it's not appropriate to cite the Veterinary Dictionary without citing the Free Dictionary as well. Additionally, had this been accessed through a library subscription (in this case it hadn't), I'd need to add that as well. In my experience, such citations are entered as a single citation, not two. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, then what I did wasn't right. The problem with the version before I started was that the two citations ran together with nothing even making it clear what was part of one and what was part of the other. It appears that "cited in" is the way they do it at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT so I'll give that a try. Feel free to revise further or make suggestions if this still doesn't look right. Kingdon (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you found that; I looked but didn't see the relevant style to use when I looked yesterday. Looks like it's got a punctuation issue; I'll fix that right now. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

Wikiproject Virus Revival
You have previously shown an interest in Wikiproject Viruses by adding your name to our List of Participants. We are currently reviving the project, and would be grateful if you could indicate whether you are still interested in contributing or not on our Talk Page. You do not need to have expertise in virology to contribute to our project, as we welcome people with any degree of knowledge of the subject. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Crassulacean acid metabolism
Hi, I notice that you've made some comments at the talk page of Crassulacean acid metabolism, which I've recently been re-working. I'm by no means an expert on this subject, so I'd welcome comments/checks on what I've done. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Doubt I'm any more of an expert than you are, but your edits look good to me. Kingdon (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at it. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to DC Meetup #28!
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

New fern initiative
I have laid down plans for a project to improve fern coverage at WikiProject Pteridophytes/Northeastern America Initiative. I see you've recently jumped from Gleason & Cronquist to Jepson, but as you've contributed material on various fern topics in the past, I thought you might be interested. Choess (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me. As for the move, yes, my garden (well, containers sitting on the balcony for now) contains Polypodium californicum and Polystichum munitum instead of a variety of the ferns from that page. Kingdon (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tropical plants
Hello, How are you? I need your help. I thank you your help in the articles. I ask you: Can you find more people willing writing in tropical trees, genera and families? I ask you if you could enlarge some articles making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to genera and families and writing information and asking people if they are interested in writing about topics as tropical trees articles, tropical forest articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know Wikipedia forums that could be interested about these type of articles? They are welcome too. I thank you very much.

I am from Spain and my mother language is not English language. Many country side areas, and Natural areas and Living beings are in Countries where population cannot collaborate with Wikipedia, but their Natural World and its highly economically valuable species are very important too in the human knowledge and developtment of the mankind. People should have information because these matters are important, not just a curiosity only. This unknow world is from Poles to ecuator, in unoccupied oceanic areas closely to Europe, in Deserts as Sahara, or whatever. But to me the main aim is to gather the abundant information disperse about living communities and living beings that have existed for millions of years because they are disappearing and in 20 years they will are not longer exist. Curritocurrito (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a pretty large number of articles (or potential articles) about tropical plants, so a more focussed question might be helpful, but in terms of where people working on such articles can be found, the plants wikiproject is the first place which springs to mind. Kingdon (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you very much by to be interested in Tropical flora. I hope in future you will write about this matter so unknow. Best regards. Curritocurrito (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

nolacuisine.com
In the process of cleaning up spamming of nolacuisine.com, I noticed a couple editors using it as a source including yourself. You're the only editor still active, and the only one with much editing history. Do you think it's a reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it is actually a quote from a book. I've updated the cite, but the reference to nolacuisine.com can only be removed if someone actually checks the info against the book itself (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), or finds another source, or something. Kingdon (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to the "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20
The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.

Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Your very old removals of speculations for superheavy elements
Hi, I browsed through the talk pages for the superheavy elements and saw your old (2007) removals of speculated properties from the infoboxes. So I thought you'd like to know that I independently started adding them – with sources – from last year. See the infoboxes for the elements from Cf onwards (and for a more concentrated supply of sourced speculations, Lr and Rf onwards), if you're curious. It seems that the properties you deleted were largely correct but for (1) many typos and (2) being unsourced!

(BTW: 22 s is more than enough to form molecules. BhO3Cl is known.) Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. I did some looking for sources back then, but wasn't finding enough to do the job properly. Speculations are fine if we know what they are based on and know which speculations are worth talking about. So if you were able to do some separation of wheat from chaff, that sounds great. (Sorry for the lack of a response on specifics like what we had said about 22 seconds, but I don't remember details from 5+ years ago). Kingdon (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It was on Bh, when you said that you doubted that something with a half-life of 22 s (old; there's now known to be an almost-1-minute isotope) could form crystals and molecules. I found predictions for both. :-) The old ones seem to have been copied by periodic trends from Re, its lighter congener. That sort of thing should be killed on sight, especially since relativity has a rather nasty habit of messing with the properties of elements. If you go to many of our SHE articles now, and also the articles on period 8 and period 9 elements, you'll see my attempts to explain what happens (and will also see my sources – unfortunately now behind paywall! Luckily, I downloaded them when they were still freely accessible... :-P)
 * (And yeah, the Db density of 39 g/cm3 was indeed suspicious. The real predicted value is 29 g/cm3. But it seems as though the highest-density metal should be element 163 (eka-Rg, dvi-gold) with a density of approximately 47 g/cm3!!) Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was a bit too sweeping in that comment (although I have no regrets about insisting on sources). My real goal at the time was to tackle the "should be killed on sight" stuff and the mindset which lead to it (bad original research, I guess, is the way to summarize it). Especially since the relativistic effects have been predicted for decades; this isn't some surprising new thing. Insisting on sources was the easiest way I could think of to get there. But as for the chemistry, that is fun stuff (I especially liked the paper, which I can't find right now, about how chemistry was the easiest way to detect single nuclei of one of those heavy elements). Kingdon (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Task Force
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maryland. Fpl-dmatzrott (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)