User talk:Mysterious Whisper/Archive 1

First Comment!

 * You may be an exception. Congratulations:  I merely observe and record what I see.  Carry on; welcome to Wikipedia. Antandrus  (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! (I'm not even going to ask how you noticed that so quickly, or at all.) I just thought it was odd; having made innumerable IP edits, when I finally broke down and got an account, it had seemed logical that my first actions would be to create my user and talk pages. For the record, I liked the essay, and I agree with most of the points of which I am knowledgeable enough to have any opinion. (And I'm a firm believer in #12 and #17, among others.) Oh, and: "Welcome Back" - Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  06:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Black Album/Come On Feel The Dandy Warhols Notability Template Question
I hope this response will help answer the question you proposed in your edit summary for the article The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols. Your edit summary was, "three notability/deletion discussions, and noboby threw up a template?". I'm sure that perhaps this was just a rhetorical question, but hopefully this will shed a little light on the subject. First, please allow me to add a little background of my activities regarding the article. I saw this article was on the "stub" articles list for albums and thought I would see if there was any editing that could be done to help expand it. (Side note: There really isn't anymore that can be done to help this article). After acquainting myself with the AfDs and DR, it appears that it was the same user who nominated the article for deletion twice within just a few months and then sent it to a deletion review as he apparently didn't care for the outcome of those two unanimous judgments in favor of keeping the article. It passed at the DR and that user seems to just be grinding an axe now regarding the deletion of the article. That same user did add a "notability" tag on the article back in May, but it was removed as he was the one who added it and his actions were construed as possible disruptive editing and keep listing til it gets deleted. Soooo...long story short: There was at one time a "notability" tag attached to this article. The user who initially added it though, apparently did so in a "bad faith" edit and so the tag was removed. The article does deserve to have a "notability" tag on it though as there really are no reliable, secondary sources. I guess that user wasn't allowed to be the person to place one though, due to his prior activity and attitude towards the page. Anyways, I hope that answers your question. And Happy Wiki-ing! Agent Orange 77 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I actually discovered said mess though that users' latest axe-grinding. I saw the most recent AfD, which referenced most of what you detailed above (though I wasn't interested enough to do that much digging), and reached about the same conclusion as you: even if the unanimous consensus is "Keep", there is certainly some question of notability/referencing, at least enough for the template. As an aside, it was meant to be rhetorical, but I do appreciate the background (and I'm learning that statements not meant to provoke responses are those most likely generate them; see the above section). Thanks, and happy editing to you as well. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  00:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Electronics engineering technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defective (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  12:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Request
Since you and Blueboar seem to be the most active responders on the Notability Noticeboard, I was just wondering if you could quickly look over this? Since I want to create it before anyone else does. :3 Silver  seren C 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I only just started contributing to that noticeboard, and I've kept my comments mainly to clear-cut cases, so I'm afraid I won't be of much help. All I can say is that a stand-alone article might violate WP:NOT ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."). But, that's the beauty of noticeboards; you'll almost certainly get responses from Blueboar, and several other experienced editors (as it's such a hot topic). The only downside is that it might take an excessive length of time (the apparent short-handedness on that board was the reason I started working there).


 * I have the noticeboard watchlisted (I'm guessing Blueboar does too), so messaging us is probably less effective than would be contacting the editors working on articles like Women in Iran and Education in Iran (maybe not those specifically, after what you said about the articles :-) Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  01:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like WhatamIdoing already responded, so i'm just going to go with his suggested title. The sooner it's written about, the better. Maybe send it to ITN as well. Silver  seren C 02:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kearny Fallout Meter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roentgen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! And here I was, dreading the inevitable AfD... Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  02:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to Userpage 14:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC) >>> Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rubus allegheniensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  14:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

 * Presumably, this was meant for my new, low-edit-count alternate account who's talkpage redirects here. (And, unfortunately, I find myself in the grey area of too experienced to need to ask random questions, and not experienced (or sociable) enough to be a host.) Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  14:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sambucus - toxicity
Hi there. Thanks for the info. Obviously, I'm a newbie, but with a passion to make sure people actually use their references correctly. You removed my edits about toxicity on the sambucus page, but I want to argue that. What I was attempting to do was correctly reference the information in the original citation (11) from the Nova Scotia museum. Ref 11 and the one I added (12), reference SPECIFIC varieties of elderberry (three different North American ones) which are poisonous. The problem with the existing article's section on toxicity is that it is too vague and therefore misleading and consequently there are loads of pages on the web telling people that elderberries are dangerous with a photo of the common sambucus nigra. I have not been able to find any online references that cite sambucus nigra as dangerous. Even the info on the Sambucus_nigra page that says its unripe berries are mildy poisonous is pretty thin on references. Many plants from this genus are poisonous, but not the common black elderberry. It's a good point that I need to reference something that confirms its safety (I have plenty of books), but my main point is that the references provided are being incorrectly used. The specific varieties mentioned in the references should be mentioned in the article, which is what I was trying to do. As it is, the article promotes misinformation. I'll try another edit and hopefully, it will meet the criteria. Urbanhuntress (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Ideally, no text should be added without proper referencing. In practice, unsourced text is sometimes kept if it's plausible and/or references are likely to be found (such text is usually appended with a tag or similar). The text you added appeared to go against the majority of available resources (as you admit), and thus seemed implausible and unlikely to be referenced, hence why I removed it outright. If you provide a (or, ideally, several, as it may be considered an exceptional claim) reliable source that states, explicitly, that Sambucus nigra seeds do not contain appreciable amounts of cyanide, then you can add such information to the article without fear of it being removed.


 * The material you added can be recovered here, however, I'd suggest a few changes. For one, the line you added at the end, while good advice about foraging in general, has no place on a page about a genus of plants. Also, I'd make the first paragraph as concise as possible (maybe: "The seeds of many Sambucus species contain dangerous amounts of cyanide, but the seeds of the common Black Elderberry, Sambucus nigra, do not.   "). This makes it both easier to reference, and less likely to be challenged.


 * You're right about some parts of the Sambucus nigra page being light on references; if you[r books] can provide references for any unsourced information (or references that refute it, and correct it), it would be a great improvement. Happy editing! Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doomsday Preppers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evacuation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  18:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Maybe you get this notice automatically, but in any case I replied to your post on the talk page. Will9194 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Salaburu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Friday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  13:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Hey man, would love to collaborate with you on fleshing out some of the CD & Nuclear war survival pages. I essentially wrote the accuracy section of - Duck and Cover (film) a while ago but feel it could do with more pictures and graphics, what do you think? Boundarylayer (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please forgive lateness of my reply. Unfortunately, you caught me at the start of an unexpected wikibreak (brought about by issues IRL), and I'm only just now editing again with any frequency. As a result, I cannot guarantee my availability for any major collaboration at this time. In addition, I must admit my knowledge on this topic is limited, especially compared to those who were active during the true Civil Defense days (such as Hga, who I see you've also contacted).


 * However, if-and-when I have more time to dedicate to Wikipedia, I would love to collaborate on creating and expanding some Nuclear war and Civil defense related articles. In particular, I've gotten stuck on creating an article (or at least a significant expansion of the subsection) on Nuclear war survival (see the general ideas in this very rough draft), as much for lack of time as lack of ideas/references. I have renewed hopes that a general "Nuclear war survival" article could be made, though, as you seem well versed and interested in the socio-political aspects, and Hga expressed interest in contributing 'Survival techniques' information; those being the two primary subtopics I've thought of for such an article. Mysterious Whisper 03:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing that OR at Influenza A virus subtype H7N9. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem (even twice)! Mysterious Whisper 03:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

 * Thanks! It feels a little undeserved, as all I did was three simple reverts, but it's nice to hear that the article was better for it. Mysterious Whisper 03:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Powdery mildew, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Papilla and Roses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious Whisper 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turban squash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C. maxima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Squash articles
Hello, I noticed your creation of many new squash articles (which is great!) Please feel free to add new articles about squash that are used as foods to WikiProject Food and Drink's New articles section! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Survivalism in fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Marsden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

List of cyberpunk works
Thank you for the information. I have used wikipedia for ages but have never edited it before, so I am still learning the ropes. Yes, I am the author of said work. I did not, however, originally add the entry for my book The Lightcap. I noticed it was removed and re-added it. If it is required to have a wikipedia page for myself personally, I am happy to provide whatever information is needed in order for that page to be created. However, I notice that there are several entries on the List of cyberpunk works article that do not have links to pages for authors and/or their works. Examples of this being Jason Blair and Dani Cavallaro on the same page. Iamdanmarshall (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right about the other unlinked entries; they should probably be removed as well. I left a note to that effect on the talk page to solicit community input before proceeding.
 * You, or, preferably, your book, should have an article in order to be included in that list, although I'm not certain either meet the notability guidelines for a standalone article. If you can present multiple, independent, reliable sources, with nontrivial coverage of you or your book, an article may be created, which, of course, would guarantee a spot on List of cyberpunk works.
 * Oh, and I see someone else did make the original addition. My mistake, I've amended my comment on your talk page accordingly. Mysterious Whisper 01:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability noticeboard
I think the consensus was that you were the only person who gives half a **** as to what happens to the Notability/Noticeboard...

Seriously though, before this issue vanishes into complete achieved oblivion, do you have any thoughts on how to proceed (if at all) on this issue? Do you think the noticeboard should be nominated for deletion? Or perhaps I should bring my concern about this noticeboard to some other venue? I'm sure you're quite busy and I'm interested in doing all the legwork here, I just would like to defer to your experience for a particular direction. Thanks in advance for any ideas! :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For now, I'd give it a few weeks to see whether the AN/I post has drummed up any interest. (Even if it hasn't, I should have more time for editing during the next few weeks, so I'll be able to attend to some of the new, unanswered posts.) In the meantime, we can draft a proposal for deleting the Notability board and directing posters to one or more of the higher-traffic boards. If, as we expect, participation remains down, then it will have to be deleted, because, at least then, we won't have scores of new editors waiting for help that will never come. To that end, I've begun drafting a proposal here, to be posted at WP:VPR if need be. Mysterious Whisper 23:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I suspected, you're well ahead of me on this. It's a shame it needs to head this way; I'd even considered becoming a regular there once my own section was archived, but one editor does not a noticeboard make. For whatever it's worth, you've got my full support. Certainly let me know if there are any onerous tasks I can assist with. Thanks again. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I too wish there were a better option, but if there is, I can't think of it. With WP:Wikiproject Notability being inactive, the admin's indifference at AN/I, etc; I don't think it would be possible generate the long-term interest that would be needed to make the noticeboard worthwhile. The worst scenario I can think of at this point is that it doesn't get deleted and participation remains low (although, even if the proposal doesn't pass, it should generate some interest, however fleeting). I wouldn't know how to proceed after that. I also considered helping out there (and I will, if there's a need, until posting my proposal), but I know from the last time I tried that I would loose interest quickly, and, as you said, one editor does not a noticeboard make. Oh well.

As for "onerous tasks", just let me know if there's anything you'd change about my proposed proposal, and maybe help maintain the Notability noticeboard until I post it. Thanks.

Mysterious Whisper 01:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been a month. More posts are being answered, but you can still count on one hand the number editors actively responding there, and there still aren't any admins actively participating there. I'll probably start the Village Pump proposal within the next few days. Do you have any new thoughts on the matter? ʍw 13:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing really that hasn't been mentioned previously. Participation is likely to remain transitory at best, and with so few participants some direction can be given but I think we can agree that no substantive consensus can be reached on the various issues presented.


 * I guess one curiosity for the sake of contrast is the amount of page views between the notability noticeboard and the others on the wiki. I ran a few on a Wikipedia article traffic statistics toolserver.


 * Between 7/1/13 - 9/1/13:


 * Administrators' noticeboard - 130,994
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - 96,524
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard - 50,196
 * Notability/Noticeboard - 3,970


 * Now, one might expect the notability noticeboard would not see the kind of attention as the main admin noticeboard, but even I have written articles which have recieved substantially more page views in that same time period. Surely a core concept such as notability should garner more attention.


 * At any rate, while a perfect solution might not be found, the worst that could happen is you draw more attention to the problem, and since much, if not all of the problem stems from that lack of attention, I think it'll work out for the best either way. Please let me know if/when you make a proposal. Thanks. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's live. ʍw 00:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567860765 your edit] to Rubus caesius may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * locations in North America.

AfD
I've replied to your comment on the copy/paste on a couple of AfDs. In fact I went ahead and added a comment to explain why I had used the same statement for each. I may have been better served having written one that didn't look specific to one of the subjects. However the issue was the same for each. Non-notable, no RS, and seems like the author seems to think that every person who's held the office of County Executive deserves to have their own article. Sorry but still learning as can be seen by the fact I'm just starting to use the actual WP, NOT, etc terms more and more in each successive post. Caffeyw (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boulder City High School, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Heights and The Bachelor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

C. pepo picture
Good catches. Can we agree on a better photo for C. pepo? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cucurbita_pepo I think the one at the top is not very good. HalfGig (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While an image showing a variety of C. pepo cultivars would be best, I don't see any there that don't also include (what appears to be) other species. I agree that there's enough variety that an image of any one cultivar wouldn't be truly representative of the whole species. (Given the images available, one solution could be to select several of them and create a collage (like the first image at Religion)). But I don't really have a strong preference as to which of the available images should be in the Cucurbita pepo taxobox, as long as we're sure that it is an image of a C. pepo. Which do you like? ʍw 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we do not seem to have a good one that sister project, what about anything here: [] and my new wikipedia friend, Mgiganteus told me about Commons and Flickr searches. The flickr search shows []. I haven't learned how to put images on Commons yet and I'm not that good with making photo collages. I'd like something with at least 3-4 pepo varieties. If I could pick and choose, I'd prefer something with Connecticut Field, zucchini, yellow crookneck, and some other varieties. And yes, I should have looked at the photos more. HalfGig (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I still can't find any images showing a variety of C. pepo cultivars that don't also include other species. Here's a collage I put together with some images from commons. It features pattypan squash, yellow summer squash, pumpkins, and zucchini. I made it a point to include images showing some foliage, which I think is important (considering the article is about the species, not just the fruit), and I think some images of leaves and flowers should be added to the gallery (if we have any). What do you think? ʍw 19:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice collage but i think https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Courgette_J1.JPG is better for the zuchinni because it's easier to see the fruit. Is it possible to change this out? Good point on the flowers etc. I will go do that.HalfGig (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's possible (although it would require creating and uploading an entirely new image). However, considering that picture is already used in the taxobox of zucchini, I'm not fond of the idea of repeating it at Cucurbita pepo. ʍw 20:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there another one useable for the zucchini in the collage? IMHO the one there now just isn't that good. Perhaps this one. HalfGig (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't look like most zucchini I've seen. How about ? ʍw 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That one is quite nice too. Very acceptable. HalfGig (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done and done. ʍw 21:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Thank you! HalfGig (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita galeottii
I started my first article, a little know curcubit species. If you have tips, just let me know on my talk. If you want to edit it yourself, feel free. Thanks for all you help so far. HalfGig (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice! It could certainly be expanded, but the referencing, use of templates, wiki syntax, etc, all seems to be in order. Good work! ʍw 00:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did make some boo boos along the way but figured it out. Mgiganteus1 helped. I do wish there were more sources. I'll look around. Then I plan to do all the Cucurbita species that need articles, and a couple pear species. HalfGig (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My background requires me to use good references and I picked up on how to do it wikipedia style by looking at articles that looked well done. Mgiganteus has given me several tips too. Would you mind taking a look at this new one too? Cucurbita lundelliana thank you very much. HalfGig (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed reply; been busy IRL...
 * Again, very nice work! I can't spot any real issues in Cucurbita lundelliana, Cucurbita pedatifolia, or Cucurbita fraterna, and the referencing and wikicode are again superb. As (I believe) there were only ten articles on Cucurbita species before you started, know that you've already significantly expanded Wikipedias' coverage in this area. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are appreciated. ʍw 23:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. I enjoy working on Cucurbita HalfGig (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm done with my initial work on Cucurbita fraterna. It's my biggest one yet of the new ones. I've dumped a lot of facts in it but I think it doesn't read well. Could you look at it and help make it a better read? HalfGig (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of rearranging and copyediting. The only real problem is the few technical terms that don't have explanatory articles to link to (such as compilospecies). But, even so, it's quite good. ʍw 01:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am going to see if I can find enough material on compilospecies to make an article. HalfGig (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a short one but don't know that to find the categories it needs and I'm not sure how those templates on the talk page work. They seem to relate to the article topic and rate the article but I don't know how the rating system works. Can you help with these items? HalfGig (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe this and this is what you wanted to do. For help with categories, see Help:Categories and Categorization. I often find it easiest to go to a related article (in this case, Species), and copy any relevant categories from there. The templates on the talk pages refer to WP:Wikiprojects, organized groups of contributors who work together to improve coverage of a specific topic on Wikipedia. The rating systems differ from project to project, and it's probably best to leave the ratings blank when adding project templates to the talk pages of articles you've written (so that uninvolved editors can rate them independently). ʍw 16:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, very informative! It looks like there's lots to learn about wiki. I like the idea of groups of editors working together. The plant project interests me. I guess my other new articles are stubs too, but Cucurbita isn't. What should it be? I will change the others. HalfGig (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The ratings for coverage and quality generally go, from lowest to highest: stub, start, C-class, B-class, Good Article, A-class, and Featured Article (see, for example, the WikiProject Plants assessment scale). Cucurbita looks like a "C", but it's fast approaching "B". To rate an article above "B" requires a special review (see, for example, Good Article Review). But there's no need to get wrapped up in these details now; as I said, it's best not to rate one's own articles, and unrated articles will get rated by members of the various WikiProjects in due course. ʍw 17:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita texana
Now created. See Mgiganteus1's page about the photo, my first with photos. Lots of material on this one to peruse. It should be bigger than fraterna.HalfGig (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you review Cucurbita]? How can I improve it? I'd like to get it to a higher rating.HalfGig (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't. I don't assess a lot of articles; I only did Cucurbita because you mentioned it and because I'm confident it's at least a "C". For better than that, you may have to consult the various WikiProjects independently, because, as I said, they all have slightly different quality standards and ways of assessing.
 * Cucurbita is of interest to three WikiProjects. WP:WikiProject Plants seems not to mind editors assessing their own articles. WP:WikiProject Food and drink prefers that articles be assessed only by members of said project who haven't significantly contributed to the article in question (you can request an assessment here). WP:WikiProject Agriculture also allows requests for assessment (here).
 * However, if you think Cucurbita satisfies the criteria listed here, you can skip dealing with the individual projects and nominate the article for Good Article assessment (here). An uninvolved editor will assess the article against the listed criteria, and provide feedback on how the article can be improved (if it doesn't pass initially). If it passes, the project ratings will be updated accordingly. However, bringing an article up to Good article status can be difficult; less than half a percent of Wikipedia article currently hold such status.
 * As far as how Cucurbita could be further improved; again I'm at a loss. The recent improvements you've made are amazing. All of the current text is well-written and properly referenced; the wikicode is also in line. The coverage it more thorough than any other single article I've seen on the subject. The images are appropriate, though I will point out that "gallery" sections are sometimes frowned upon, as images are often better interspersed throughout an article. In my less-than-expert opinion, Cucurbita has a good chance of meeting the Good article criteria as it is (compare to other plant genus Good articles, such as Buxbaumia, Tropaeolum, and Stylidium). But again, I haven't the expertise to say for sure.
 * ʍw 02:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Fair enough. I'll work on your suggestions and go from there. You've been very helpful. It looks like the "good" process is more formalized. Thank you. HalfGig (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this for "good" status. HalfGig (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for posting your proposal to the Village Pump. Biosthmors (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC
If you want to add an RFC tag, just add  at the very top of the section.  equazcion ( talk ) 00:46, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)

New

 * Cucurbita sororia, Cucurbita palmeri, Cucurbita kellyana HalfGig (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Since you've also created your userpage, you may want to consider moving your "My articles" list and your barnstar from your talkpage to there (more ideas here).
 * ʍw 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you, but I don't want a bunch of clutter on my user page. Is there something else I can do with my awards and new article list? HalfGig (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You could put them in subpages, like User:HalfGig/Articles and User:HalfGig/Awards. Or you could just leave them; there's nothing expressly forbidding having such things on a User talk page (although if you leave them on the talk page, I'd suggest moving them to the top, above the discussion sections). ʍw 01:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the subpage idea. I'll link to them from my user main page or talk page. Thanks! HalfGig (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Helping Hand Barnstar

 * Cucurbita is GA now. HalfGig (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and congrats on the GA! ʍw 13:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * New articles: Cayaponia espelina, Pyrus amygdaliformis, Pyrus armeniacifolia, António Luiz Patricio da Silva Manso. If you have time to look at them... HalfGig (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Guilá Naquitz cave is next. Then I'll do the three remaining cucurbita species red links. I'll also steadily work on making Cucurbita better. See Chiswick chap's talk page too.HalfGig (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita peer review
I just listed Cucurbita at Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1. If you have time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in Cucurbita? I'd greatly appreciate it. I appreicate any assistance you can provide. HalfGig (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to provide thoughts
Hi, Mysterious Whisper!

Since you provided comments on this discussion, I invite you to look at the discussion for a system of automating article requests I have been working on independently.

Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 18:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Trying again
I've decided to try again to make Cucurbita as good as we can. I'll start by going back over the peer review. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your long support and superb guidance. Best wishes to you on the New Year. HalfGig  talk  13:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chemical chameleon reaction (permanganate).ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Chemical chameleon reaction (permanganate).ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently a mistag - Permission has been checked. Striking out the above, I made a bad call :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=615096103 your edit] to Nuclear warfare may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by the newly formed United Nations, for example) as an effort to deter both their usage and an Nuclear arms race|arms race. However, no terms could be arrived at that would be agreed upon by

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nuclear warfare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dead Hand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marrow (vegetable), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marrow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No action needed; link intended. ʍw 15:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Squash blossom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marrow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of Lord Laitinen's edit on Zucchini
Hello, Mysterious Whisper. Just in case you missed my edit summary on zucchini, I returned my correct change to the article. Just as you stated in your own edit summary, the zucchini is botanically (officially) a fruit, while treated like a vegetable only in the culinary sense. Also, while zucchinis (and all squashes) are thought to be vegetables by many, I do not argumentum ad populum. As an expert in both botany and the culinary arts/sciences, I think I know when it should be called a fruit or vegetable. The paragraph in which I changed the term "vegetables" to "fruits" was clearly pertaining to cultivation and gardening; botany is closely related to these subjects, while cooking is not at all related. I encourage you to continue being bold and brazen, as I have succeeded in gaining permissions and silencing conflicts, both others and my own, with those characteristics many times in my Wikipedian career. I politely ask that you not revert my edits again, for I desire not a conflict or edit war with you. My only recommendation (and concluding comment) for you is to more carefully consider context when reverting others' edits, even when the edit appears to be blatantly incorrect to you. Examination and prudence make a good editor great! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is flawed because there's no such thing as a 'botanical vegetable'. Vegetable has one meaning only, thus why it's a vegetable and a fruit at the same time, no matter the context. There should only be confusion in a culinary context, when you call it a fruit. I've attempted a compromise for the edit.
 * This diatribe you've posted smacks of pompousness. I've been editing Wikipedia for longer than you, and only I seem to know that best practice is WP:BRD, not BRRD, as is reflected in the WP:BOLD guideline. I suggest you stay short, sweet, and to the point when starting communication. ʍw 12:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should consider this, as well. I found you to be quite pompous and overzealous in your edit summary.  You reverted my edit, called it incorrect, and "justified" your edit by stating a simple fact that proved my edit further correct than yours.  I did not attack you and, as I said above, I have no desire to conflict with you.  I will not battle for zucchini, and whatever your compromise edit was, I will accept it and continue recuperating.  I don't need recommendations or advice from you any more than you claim to need them from me.  Though you joined Wikipedia before I did, and though I agree that permissions do not necessarily prove one editor better, my two earned permissions clearly show I am equally as capable an editor as you.  I have a tendency to aggressively defend edits I truly believe to be correct, because I do not tend to act erroneously and without thought.  Once again, I laud you for standing up for yourself.  Even though you were attempting (and failing, no offense) at proving your edit correct and insulting me, you showed signs of great courage in the face of adversity.  This is a good Wikipedian characteristic, and I believe that you most definitely could earn permissions and soar to high places on Wikipedia.  I wish not to discuss the subject of squashes any further, and unless we cross paths in our future edits, this is goodbye.  Go with God, and happy editing!   ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk)  14:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I insult you. Brandishing your "permissions" about will get you nowhere on Wikipedia; it's known as "Hat collecting" and is considered disgraceful. Permissions are granted only to allow you to better aid the project and community through their use, not to boost your ego. I have no permissions because I haven't sought them and feel I'm an effective editor without them. Thank you for accepting my compromise, even though you appear not to have examined it. ʍw 14:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have since examined your compromise, and it seems to work in the article just fine. Also, I considered you calling me "pompous" and implying that I was garrulous to be insulting in nature.  However, no matter your intentions, my feelings were not hurt nor my emotions affected in any way.  I do not allow emotion into my editing.  Also, I very conservatively mentioned my permissions to show the community's trust I have earned, not to boost my non-existent "ego" or claim I was better than you or anyone else, for that matter.  However, I forgive your misunderstanding this, as it is much more difficult to determine context in writing than in verbal conversation.   ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk)  17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ANFO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Marsden. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)



Palindrome
Notifying all named accounts who have edited this article this year. There is a discussion of whether this article should contain foreign language palindromes. If you would like to comment the thread is Talk:Palindrome Meters (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Idea lab deletion issue
I am sorry to see your good faith proposal at the idea lab went down in flames. I see the discussion as close so I'm not going to add anything there, but I did want to add a point that may make you feel better about the conclusion. TenOfAllTrades identified a situation which could lead to a problem. You felt the situation was hypothetical and unlikely. I can assure you that it is much more common than you might have realized. I spend a fair amount of time looking into copyright issues. On occasion, I have run across an article which has a CSD tag and has a copyright issue as yet unidentified. In some cases, I've taken the time to add the CSD for copyright issues. This may seem like overkill as one can only delete an article once, but my concern was that someone might disagree with the other rationale or cure it, which would result in an article existing with a copyright problem. It turns out to be easy to add a CSD for copyright 20 article that has been prodded, but not quite so easy to do so in other situations. If uncomfortable that the article is highly likely to be deleted I don't go through the extra effort of adding the copyright violation tag but if I think it might survive the other rationale, I'll go ahead and add the copyright tag specifically to help make sure that it does get deleted. I can safely say I've seen over 100 of these examples in the past few weeks so my main point is that this is not as rare as you might have assumed. On a related point, I think we can be a little deletion happy at times (slightly ironic, as I have carried out a significant number of deletions) and would be supportive of a more inclusionist philosophy.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Aehobak
Hi, I've noticed you like squashes too. Would you mind helping me with Aehobak? Regards 143.176.56.102 (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As you noted at Talk:Aehobak, what we need is someone who can find and interpret sources in Korean. I went through Translators available and Category:Translators ko-en and found a few editors willing to help translate from Korean to English who've edited recently. I'll try pinging them at the article talk page.
 * ʍw 18:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did not know about this category. 143.176.56.102 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)