User talk:MPF/archive3

I've done some editing on Acorus and Sweet Flag as requested. This is not an easy genus since so many sources contradict each other. I've added also Acorus latifolius Z.Y.Zhu and Acorus xiangyeus Z.Y.Zhu (both native to China) to Acorus species, but I'm not 100 % sure that these are accepted names. Information can only be found on Chinese websites. I speak and write several languages but not Chinese. I've moved a lot of information from Sweet Flag to Acorus. I would have written an article (little more than a stub) on Acorus americanus, but I cannot find an image with the right copyright tag. And I don't like species taxoboxes without image. Anyway, take a look at it and see if you can add more information. JoJan 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Acorus

...but Sansevieria is now classified in the Ruscaceae, not in the Agavaceae any more... Point taken. But then see article Sansevieria trifasciata. Rellis1067 19:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sansevieria

Gripped off again... I've been in Norfolk for three days with nothing more exciting than Curlew Sandpiper. jimfbleak. Good image, well done! 05:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Booted Warbler

Thanks for this! I had been trying to limit for Vietnamese language but there isn't a category on Google advanced search for that. I think the sticking point is that if you search for the regular "d" the Vietnamese "d" with the line through it won't show up in a search, so you're out of luck. How do you search by country? I just tried and saw no such box.
 * Vietnamese for neem

By the way, I was in Long Beach, CA a few months ago and visited a nightclub/restaurant in the Cambodian area. I brought some friends and we chowed down on some stir-fried neem. The Cambodian teenagers sitting next to us were very surprised that we were eating it because they said they hated it! Best, Badagnani 08:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just figured it out--it's under "language tools". I'd never thought to look there before. Thanks again. Badagnani 08:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you added "and (far left) galls" to the caption in the taxobox. I think those are the male cones, not galls (if we're looking at the same thing). I'm certainly not an expert, though. I have some other pictures that show what I think are male cone better, if it would help.
 * Juniperus osteosperma pics

I've got one tree with some Juniper Mistletoe in it, but it's too high up for a convincing photo. I'll break out the ladder this weekend to see if I can't get a closeup. Toiyabe 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lesson! The galls are so common that I didn't think they could be a disease.  I've uploaded two closeups of them if you want to use them - Image:Utah_juniper_cones_1.jpg and Image:Utah_juniper_cones_2.jpg  Toiyabe 16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I note the you had moved Kahikatea to Dacrycarpus dacrydioides. I have moved it back. The Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles_and_common_names recommends that unique common names are to be used as article names rather than the binomial scientific name. Kahikatea is a unique common name. Alan Liefting 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Article name for plants

Hey, thanks for the note on the bigtooth maple photos. I agree with your changes and considered making them myself; I'm just a bit (too) cautious about stepping on other's toes. By the way, I've admired more than a few of your tree contributions -- hope you don't mind a little company in that area. ;-) Maylett 22:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bigtooth maple

Thanks for looking over this page which I've been working on. However thru is a variant spelling not an error. Some of the references apply to more than the sentence which they follow so should be the other side of the full stop but in other places you were quite correct. Thanks for drawing my attention to that bit.Dejvid 10:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hadrian page

If you look at what form was origionally used then thru is a lot more common. I have changed back a few of your moving of my refs but I'll keep your points in mind. I've only just started using refs so I know I'm still learning. However almost all the ones I've changed back are at the ends of paras so, hopefully, won't look odd. The other refs refered to just the sentance that preceded it and like I said your changes make it much clearer.Dejvid 13:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi MPF! Thanks as always for your accurate identification. Funny thing is, that's probably the only photo I could have identified myself as straight after you said radiata pine I remebered that they were the only pines that grew around here. Canberra camp was great and I got a couple of good pix which will soone be appearing on FPC! --Fir0002 02:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Radiata pine photos

Thank you for this - I had no idea that zoological articles represented an exception to this rule. It does seem that the matter is not quite settled, though: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms Badagnani 22:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Capitalization

Hmm, seems to me that I've always been ok with the convention of having genus capitalized and species not (with both in italics), but it does look strange to my eye (having a musical rather than a biological background) to see bird common names capitalized. The confusion between common starlings and "Common Starlings", or whatever example that is given, could easily be rectified, I think, by just including a parenthetical reference to the Latin name (which I would think a careful editor would add if there were any chance of confusion). Anyway, I won't muscle in on zoological territory but I do agree it seems odd that birds and other mammals are privileged (as regards capitalization) over less glamorous species ;) Badagnani 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 10:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls| Science pearls

Thanks, I had wondered if it was the case (that cassia is sold labeled as cinnamon) in other parts of the world, i.e. Asia, Africa, etc. All the sources I looked at online used North America (minus Mexico, of course) as the example of places where people have had the wool pulled over their eyes in this regard. This is changing in the last year or two, due to articles like Martha Stewart's. I myself ordered my first lot of true (Ceylon) cinnamon sticks this past year, and ground some of my own. It is quite different! In any case, if you're sure Britain and India are two other places where cassia is sold labeled as cinnamon the text of the article should be changed to reflect that. Badagnani 19:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cassia/cinnamon

That is interesting - I do use cassia sticks in this way (fried in aloo-type curry dishes), for which Ceylon cinnamon wouldn't work well. Complicating matters is that the Indian subcontinent uses other Cinnamomum species like tamala/tejpat for leaves (usually mislabeled "Indian bay leaves") and bark. Badagnani 21:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my input. I've worked on the cinnamon, cassia, and malobathrum articles for a while now (as I learn about these things), and I think that, from the points brought up from our discussion, the section should be reworded, with more detail, reflecting the reality "on the ground" in North America, Europe (including UK), and India, keeping in mind that the use of common names for Cinnamomum species can be very confusing. The paragraph could be combined with the fact that, for North Americans north of the Rio Grande, things are changing. This article is going to be come across by a lot of people who are going to read it and say, "I didn't know cinnamon and cassia weren't the same thing", or "I didn't know what I always thought was cinnamon really wasn't!" So the article will serve as an educational tool, so it should be as complete and factual as possible. If you just say much of the world trade labels cassia as cinnamon I think that's not specific enough as to where, how, why, etc. Badagnani 22:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I added an image and some text to this excellent article that seems to be primarily your work. Last weekend, I photographed the Lake Quinault and the Preston Macy trees on a trip to Olympic National Park and did short hikes through the splendid spruce-redcedar forests near Lake Quinault and the Hoh River Visitors Center. Walter Siegmund 17:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sitka spruce


 * Range: Van Pelt claims that Cape Medicino is the southern limit; he apparently was unaware of the Fort Bragg colony.
 * Citation. I think Journal reference novolume from Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations may be a better template than Book reference, but revert if you don't agree. If you keep it, please correct the page numbers.
 * Capitalization: Thanks for bearing with me on this matter. After my edits, I read in the style manual that British and American practices are somewhat different. (I'm assuming that you are British.) Also, spelling differences go beyond colour/color so I need to be aware of that as well.
 * Headers: I am not particularly troubled by the table of contents boxes, but I'm happy to defer to your judgement.
 * Image: Thank you for the kind words about my picture and for giving it more prominence. Walter Siegmund 04:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the history on this matter. I don't want to belabor a point that has been thoroughly discussed, but the standard field guide for this region, Pojar and MacKinnon, uses lower case for trees (except for proper names like Sitka) as does the lesser used Whitney. Van Pelt does the same.


 * Book reference | Author=Van Pelt, R. | Title=Book reference | Author= Pojar, Jim and MacKinnon, Andy | Title=Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska | Publisher=Lone Pine Publishing | Year=2004 | ID=ISBN 1551050404
 * Book reference | Author= Whitney, Stephen R. | Title=A field guide to the Cascades & Olympics | Publisher=Mountaineers | Year= 1983 | ID=ISBN 0898860776

Thank you for adding the description. I see cones rarely but hope to get a good image of one eventually. I have good Chamaecyparis nootkatensis and Pinus albicaulis images from 25 September, east of Mount Rainier. Walter Siegmund 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Coast Range Subalpine Fir


 * Moved. So what's stopping you from going up for adminship? (That isn't a complaint - it's fun to get to use my admin superpowers sometimes!)  You have twenty-fricking-thousand edits!!!!!!  You've been here long enough.  Do you have any enemies besides Brya?  I think you'd be a shoo-in.  Guettarda 20:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd speak a word of caution. Even though being an admin is supposed to be no big deal, some voters will likely note that, out of over 20,000 edits, you only have 254 to the Wikipedia namespace and 199 to Wikipedia talk. One of the key powers of an admin is to delete articles and other things that have been voted for deletion at AfD, IfD, RfD, CfD, MfD, etc. Voters therefore often look to editors who understand the process as evidenced by regular participation in the discussions on those pages, as well as on the RfA page (perhaps a kind of circular logic is involved). Also, bear in mind that as an admin, you will occasionally be beseeched by an editor who claims that so-and-so is vandalising articles and should be blocked. So, you have to be ready to deal with such requests. If you were to seek admin powers, tho, and were prepared to handle the occasional admin request that comes your way, I don't think your wiki namespace numbers should stand in your way - you certainly don't fit the profile of someone who would abuse those powers, and I'd be glad to nominate you if you remain interested. Cheers! --BD2412 talk 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to check Brent Goose for loose ends. jimfbleak 06:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Brent Goose

MPF, I was able to obtain images of Taxus brevifolia foliage and form yesterday. It was in the eastern portion of its range, east of the crest of the Cascade Range. Other images include Larix lyallii and Picea engelmanni. I have another Tsuga mertensiana cone and foliage that I might add to its gallery. It is from a dryer and higher elevation location about 200 km from the other fall image location. Is there a policy on displaying geographically disparate images? -Walter Siegmund 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sprite Lake expedition

Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 05:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Brain Teasers

Michael, a few minutes ago, I found myself starting to edit a parenthetical explanation of pulvini (Picea engelmannii). Then, I realized that to be consistent, I would have to do the same thing for pubescent, glaucous, rombic, and pendulous. It makes sense to me that stomata is hyperlinked. But bark, seeds, cones and leaves are as well even though the latter terms are likely to be familiar to most readers. This doesn't make sense to me, but I suppose it has been thoroughly aired on talk pages; where do I look?
 * Vocabulary

Thank you for your reply on T. baccata longevity. I remember reading long ago an article about trees on the US east coast that were allegedly planted by G. Washington, etc. It turned out that few, if any, trees east of the Rocky Mountains are that old and certainly not the specific trees cited. -Walter Siegmund 03:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are currently coming tied 2nd on the Hardest Questions In The World Section's scoreboard with 2 correct answers. You are 1 point away from the score board's leader. Spawn Man 07:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hardest Questions In The World Section

Congratulations, you are now tied for the lead of the scoreboard with 3 points. Spawn Man 10:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Think I hadn't noticed it was part of a title; had I done, I would never have a put a link there. Regards, –Hajor 13:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Pine

Hi Robbie - nice pic, but. . . there's a bit of a problem with this (and all forestryimages.org) pics: the non-commercial restriction makes it an invalid license for use on wikipedia. However, it is possible that the non-commercial restriction is invalid; if the photo was taken by a USFS employee in the course of their official duties, then the pic is in the public domain, and the restriction placed by UGa on its use is invalid. But if the pic was taken by a USFS employee during their own private time, then it is not in the public domain, and the restriction can be valid. As a general rule, it is best not to upload photos where there is any doubt over the unconditionality of the license - MPF 22:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:W-white-pine.jpg


 * I understand your point, however the site says the images are available for non-commercial use with attribution. Does Wiki have a license that covers that? In this case the person is a USDA staff member. How is this different from the images at The PLANTS Database National Plant Data Center (USDA)? Thanks in advance. Robbie Giles 00:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Michael, I have an image of Cirsium edule. Image: EdibleThistle_7396.jpg|Edible Thistle Do you expect to add an article for it anytime soon? I plan to go to Lassen Volcanic National Park and points enroute next week and to return with more images. -Walter Siegmund 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cirsium edule

What a splendid image! Congratulations, if I may be so bold and they are appropriate.
 * Regulus regulus and color blind accessible graphics.

I took the liberty of fiddling a bit with the Pinus contorta map with the help of a color blind friend. See Talk:Lodgepole Pine. I hope you approve, but if not, feel free to revert. BTW, the color blind subgroup on Wikipedea seems quite active on the Color Blindness talk page. Some of those users might be happy to comment as well. The links from Color Blindness  to external web sites on the design of graphics for the color blind were not as helpful as I might have hoped. -Walter Siegmund 05:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

By all means; I nearly did so myself. Sheoak is the common name for members of the genera Casuarina, Allocasuarina and Gymnostoma. Since these are the only three genera in Casuarinaceae, is it therefore true to say that sheoak is the common name for members of the family Casuarinaceae? I wasn't absolutely certain that it does, so I took the safe option. Snottygobble | Talk 01:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sheoak
 * Okay, I'll do it shortly. Snottygobble | Talk 01:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't believe there wasn't a Trachelospermum article before. I'd like to say wouldn't it be wrong to have the common names there like that? I think it should be pointed out that star jasmine and confederate jasmine (or confederate jessamine) is the common name for T. jasminoides. Climbing dogbane is the common name for T. difforme. The only other species I know of in cultivation is T. asiaticum and it's common name is yellow star jasmine. I think it's very important to make that clear because sometimes a common name is only specific to a species. I want to make it a section for the species and their common name like in the Gardenia article, let me know if this would be wrong though :) --Hecktor 00:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Trachelospermum

Hello there, I was doing a bit of editing on Black pepper, and began to wonder why it was so plant-oriented (as opposed to spice-oriented), especially in its lead. I looked through the history and saw that it used to emphasise pepper as a spice until 7 September, when you reorganized it into a more botanical, less culinary form. 
 * Black pepper

I was interested on your thoughts as to whether it would be better to keep it as one article, covering both areas, or if perhaps it should be split into two, much like coffee and coffea. If you think a split is appropriate, I'd love your thoughts on page names as well.

Thanks! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. "The general principle that an article about X should start with a definition of what X is, before what it does, or what it is used for" is good in principal, but if you look at the "what links here" for Black pepper, it looks like it's almost all references to the spice, not the tree, so I'm still tempted to split the pages. I'll only split them if I expand them as well, though - I agree that for the moment, the size makes one page appropriate. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that 240 px makes the taxobox too wide, and by adding pictures at 200px, I'm trying to set a new semi-standard... (I'll use 240 from now on, though. Thanks!) -- Eugene van der Pijll 16:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Plant taxobox pics

Please see User_talk:Wsiegmund#Cupressus_bakeri_trip_report|Cupressus bakeri trip report. Walter Siegmund 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cupressus bakeri trip report


 * Thank you for the sympathy and wishes. It was a good adventure and I learned a bit about preparing for such expeditions. -Walter Siegmund 00:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added some T. brevifolia pictures to the article. They are from Saturday a few kilometers north of Corvallis, Oregon where they are locally common. While not outstanding images, the help illustrate important features. Please make any adjustments that seem good to you. -Walter Siegmund 00:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Taxus brevifolia
 * Great pics! None of the trees with any cones ("berries") on? (a good crop, as always, on T. baccata here) - MPF 00:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No berries are present this year according to my sources in Oregon. It was a bad year for cones in general (except for Mountain Hemlock and Douglas Fir). Thank you for the kind words about the pictures. I have Incense Cedar from southern Oregon and Whitebark Pine from Lassen Volcanic NP. I have some Juniper images from Lava Beds NM that I might need some help identifying. I think it is Western Juniper, but I'm not very familiar with Junipers. Also, I have Ponderosa Pine, Mountain Hemlock, Red Fir, and Lodgepole Pine images. -Walter Siegmund 01:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Always annoying when there's no cones (my western US trip was also in a poor cone year, tho' I did manage to collect cones of most species eventually (actually, if it had been a good year, there's no way I'd have got them home :-)). Maybe T. baccata's greater fecundity is part of the reason it is more successful (I've never seen a blank year on it, and often get bird-sown seedlings in the garden). You're safe on Juniperus occidentalis subsp. occidentalis, it is the only juniper in that area (it doesn't have a page yet, I'll do one for it tomorrow) - MPF 01:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That is welcome news about your plans for a page for Juniperus occidentalis. I'll upload some images in a bit. Look for them in Commons:Juniperus occidentalis. One is from Hilt, CA, about 100 km west of Lava Beds NM, but looks very similar to the Lava Beds individuals, so I'm calling it J. occidentalis as well. Correct me if I am wrong. Thank you. -Walter Siegmund 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done Juniperus occidentalis. "One is from Hilt, CA, about 100 km west of Lava Beds NM, but looks very similar to the Lava Beds individuals, so I'm calling it J. occidentalis as well" - yep, sure is (and not far from where I got some of mine at Yreka) - MPF 14:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In Commons:Image:Juniperus occidentalis 8224.jpg, is the brown feature that looks a little like a miniature Douglas-fir cone, the gall caused by the Juniper Tip Midge, Oligotrophus betheli? That was splendid (and quick) work on the new article, Juniperus occidentalis! Thank you. -Walter Siegmund 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move - I just trusted the labelling on the trees. When it said Bhutan pine I foolishly believed it ! Velela 22:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Blue Pine Images

I was wondering about the Bristlecone pine edit, too, but hadn't had time to look into it. I think there are some clonal plants that may be older, but that is not quite the same as the oldest individual. Anyhow, thanks for fixing it. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Bristlecone pine

Image:Pinus contorta 8401.jpg|P. contorta subsp. murrayana Hi, Michael, I wonder if you might be kind enough to check my ID of the individual in this image? The lower cone is very similar to the fourth one at http://www.conifers.org/pi/pin/murrayana.htm But the youngest cone is much more prickly than my Image:LodgepolePine_6915.jpg| P. contorta subsp. latifolia image. Is that one of subspecies differences, or did I misidentify it? Thank you for confirming the ID of the Oligotrophus betheli gall on my talk page. That is fascinating. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Michael, I've been learning about the Wikipedia geolinks templates. You may already know all this, but it was a pleasant discovery for me. See my talk page. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * P. contorta subsp. murrayana

I will make sure to utilize it in the future. Muggwort17 12:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice!

I am curious about the proper name of the endemic pine of the Sierra de la Laguna in Baja California. I found a number of articles naming it Pinus lagunae, but the wikipedia article on Mexican Pinyon maintains that it is a subspecies of Pinus cembroides, P. cembroides subsp. lagunae. In an article from the International Journal of Climatology http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~tswetnam/tws-pdf/DiazEtal.pdf the authors write "P. lagunae was formerly considered a variety of P. cembroides, but in 1987 its taxonomic level was upgraded to a species (Passini, 1987)." The reference cited in the article was "Passini MF. 1987. The endemic pinyon of Lower California: Pinus lagunae M.-F. Passini. Phytologia 63(5): 337–338." Any thoughts? Tom Radulovich 05:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Pinus lagunae


 * Thanks for the reply. I mentioned the alternate nomenclature in the article, and made a Pinus lagunae a redirect to Mexican Pinyon, which should serve well enough. Tom Radulovich 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The next scalar option is Indigenous people of the Americas. BD2412 T 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Native American dab


 * Yes, I agree with what you decided about Spruce. Tedernst 21:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for checking this out. Cheers, Tbc2 21:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Equisetum japonicum

Thanks for copyediting my Sakaki article. That was my first from-scratch on Wiki :-) -- Julian Morrison 03:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sakaki

Thank you for adding information to the polar bear article. But:
 * Polar Bear
 * 1) I disagree with your position on blank lines. I find blank lines before and after section headers make editing easier and it doesn't change the actual appearance of the article when reading and not editing. Different articles do it differently and there is no wikiwide consensus. (Changing a bunch of blank lines with other changes makes it difficult to verify no vandalism was done, but that's a different issue than whether it is better to have them or not.)
 * 2) I disagree with your capitalizing within the article (e.g. racoons) I think you misunderstand the wiki guidelines on this matter. Please consult someone you trust.
 * 3) Verifying is very important. Seperating mere external links from sources (Wikiguide suggests calling the section "references", but the guidelines are just that - not mandatory.) is an important part of that. Tying specific parts of the contents of an article to a source is anso important. How is one to know if the additions you made is trustworthy or vandalism without references? "Polar bears are known for their comical and often photogenic recreational activities. For example, they slide on their bellies, box with each other, and dunk one another underwater. When the female makes her den she makes it on a hillside so her cubs can slide down the hill on their bottoms, a feature commonly depicted in cartoons and other fictional depictions of polar bears, including a 1990s Coca-Cola ad campaign." occures in [://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_Bear&oldid=18881591 this version of the polar bear article] without a reference. Someone added an official looking list of subspecies without a reference. Please reference your additions. Just looking valid doesn't mean they are. I'm sure your additions are valid, but maybe I'm wrong or you are mistaken. Sourcing is better than not sourcing. And even if you choose to make an improvement and not provide a source, it is vandalism to REMOVE a reference to a fact as you did in the polar bear article. Please don't do that.

Thanks for helping wikipedia. Be aware there are many vandals out there trying to mess up our hard work. Making edits easy to verify as valid is helpful in this regard. I apologise if I have been less than helpful to you in past edits - fighting constant vandalism makes one quick on the trigger sometimes. I look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 16:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, am I happy I'm overjoyed to learn you are neither a vandal nor a newbie. I'm TIRED of protecting "Polar Bear". Go for it. We disagree on various things, but what I REALLY care about is TRUTH. You've convinced me that I need not concern myself with you concerning THAT. Good luck to you. Bush being a bad president and greed replacing morals is a concern to me outside wikipedia - and not really relevant to this discussion except I did not wish to leave this discussion without some indication of what I WILL fight about. (But even then, truth [being about knowledge of all sides] means fighting for me is about helping everyone know as much as possible about all sides.) I look forward to seeing your continuing efforts. Most respectfully, WAS 4.250 02:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your reverting of my edits to this article. I moved the "also called" phrase to the "also called" in brackets, as I couldn't see why there should be two sections, and in line with the redirect that I had just made for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles|missing encyclopædic articles project. I also expanded the "cm"s into "centimetres", in line with the Manual of style's advice on abbreviations. The only part that is a genuine matter of disagreement might be the numbers; some modern guides say that words only need to be used under ten, but I prefer what used to be the much more common, and to my eye better, system of using words for numbers under 100. I've seen both in Wikipedia articles, so as I was expanding the abbreviations I expanded the numerals too. --Phronima 15:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Dactylis glomerata

Thanks for the upgrade. I wasn't intending to start an article, but couldn't believe there wasn't one started already.
 * Willow oak

I live in Atlanta, and just typical: Willow oak surrounds Northlake Mall. Willow oak at my Apt. complex. Willow oak on the streets of downtown Atlanta, at GA Tech, and also growing naturally in people's yards.

Indeed, I have a willow oak in my house, 5 feet tall. I'm growing it just for fun. And it usually grows 1 foot a year, but grew 2 1/2 feet in the "growth spurt" year (maybe I watered it too much?). Anyway, Wikipedia is a TEAM effort!

The point I was trying to make is the tree, when young, is tall, thin, densely branchiated with lots of leaves. For the first 15 years, it tends to be fine. But it doesn't stop. Next you know, cracked sidewalks as it bulks up to 4-5 feet in diameter. People are fooled by the small leaf size! - User:Ryoung122 User talk:RYoung 00:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello MPF. I agree with your opinion that the "Links to other Pinaceae" is redundant but I think it should be left there. It is more reader-friendly to have a list of 10 links to the pages of the general topics (i.e., the genera) that lead the reader to the many specific sub-topics, rather than using the category page, which is a long list of 100+ links to all Pinaceae-related pages and is more like an index. I would be happy, however, to reduce the number of headers. --Schzmo 03:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Links to other Pinaceae'

Yes, sometimes I have to pay for my own pedantry! Could've just left it be, but stuff like that annoys me... Double re-directs are all gone now, so it's just a case of plodding on through! Might not all be done tonight, but it'll be done some time... Cheers, CLW 17:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Conifer cone
 * Sure, I'm not a fan of bolding for emphasis, as I find it distracting when there's also italicisation in an article, but that's just me. I've reverted the de-bolding myself. CLW 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Great! Don't go giving yourself RSI... CLW 17:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow! Came back this morning to tackle the next load - found 'em all done! Cheers, CLW 09:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right about the potential size of the Category:Trees. I have been putting Conifers, Oaks, and Palms into their respective categories, but for most tree species, there simply isn't an appropriate subcategory for them yet. Many trees belong to genera or families which contain non-trees as well, so the taxonomic category wouldn't really work as a subcategory of Trees (you've pointed out, for instance, that there are herbaceous dogwood species).
 * Category:Trees

I'm dealing with a host of articles listed in plant-stubs (nearly 1700 stub articles), and most of the stub articles on trees have no category at all right now. They need some sort of category, even if the category is altered later. You're more than welcome to make improvements on my first pass through the plant stubs. If you can subcategorize the trees and re-classify articles that are not about trees, then I would love the help. So far, it looks as though no one has been categorizing many tree articles...at least not the stubs. But then, they were drowning in a long list of various plant stubs.

What's been really annoying is that many of the stub articles do not identify whether the plant is a tree, shrub, herb, vine, or what. Unless I can independently figure out what kind of plant it is (or make a shrewd guess), it will continue to clutter up the plant stubs listing. As I work, I find that sometimes the article gives a false impression that the plant is a tree (e.g. "Tree poppy") and I have to go by what I can glean from the article. --EncycloPetey 12:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi MPF. Thanks for clarifying what the user was doing. You may have noticed that they made similar change to quite a number of pages in a short amount of time. The first couple of edits that I reverted seemed to be changing the links from a specific links to disambig links (I tried them in nl.wikipedia, and the original specific links were working). As I looked at changes on further pages the picture wasn't quite as clear, and other users had started reverting the changes, so I thought I would stop and leave it those users (who probably knew more). Thanks again for letting me know. Cheers TigerShark 15:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * RE: 62.177.137.37's edits at Tree

I'm probably to blame for the difficulty you had while editting. I've been archiving old sections this weekend, so each time I archive a section, all the sections below it have their section number decreased by one. If that happens between the time you load the page and when you click the edit link, it causes you to edit the section below the one you intended. Reloading the page should solve the problem. Caerwine 00:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Stub Sorting Proposals problem

Hi MPF, Please go ahead, and do as you suggested with the Leucothoe issue. I'll try to write up some text on the amphipod when I find some time one of these days...
 * Leucothoe

Btw, on your useful copy & paste notes, a way to write the non-breaking space in nowiki is as follows: &amp;nbsp;  

lycaon 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi MPF. Yes you're right, here in Chile it's called pino radiata but then if a Chilean working in the industry were speaking English on the topic, he'd definitely say Radiata Pine or just Radiata. The plantation of radiata really took off in Chile during the 1980s when Wink Sutton, the pioneer of the pruning silvicultural regime in New Zealand came and visited Chile on consultancy work. There has been a big connection in the industry between NZ and Chile ever since and this would explain the use of the radiata name in Chile rather than following the norm used in Spain. I worked for Radiata plantation companies between 1992-1999 both in NZ and Chile. I'm thinking of adding to the article at a latter date to cover the its commercial treatment as a plantation (which would help explain the huge difference between the appearance of a wild specimen in California and a crop specimen in NZ or Chile). Saludos--GringoInChile 08:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Monterey Pine

Not at all, beechnut was linked to from a few other articles, but not beech. I thought at the time and am sure now, a redirect to beech is more appropriate Grunners 16:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * re: beech nut