User talk:Nadiatalent/Archive 4

Thanks!
Hi, Thanks for correcting my mistake... :-) Already moved the picture for the Stamen Gallery section! Best Regards! fgrau (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
Sorry for my clumsy edits and thanks for your edits on cherry blossom and Prunus × yedoensis. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Crataegus tanacetifolia photo
Thanks for that (and thanks to Knud). I've removed it from the article and interwikis and put in a rename request at commons. Melburnian (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Catching Headline
Thank you for the sweet words about combatting vandalism. :)

However, this IP is a proxy. I must admit, that I, as the writer, did not do anything, but perhaps this IP should still be blocked due to policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.66.54 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

M. bijugatis
Hi. Can we please discuss the issue of the taxonomic info? I started a section on the talk page after my edit. If someone reverts your edit, you should discuss it, not simply revert. Guettarda (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Bad day, I let things get to me. I shouldn't have, and I sincerely apologise. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature
I noticed your edit to Binomial nomenclature and the comment "Linnaeus' classification system above the species level isn't relevant here, if anything the phrase names would be the contrast" which seems to me to be exactly right, given the title of the article. As I've noted at Talk:Binomial_nomenclature, I think the whole article is very confused/confusing. However, one problem is that the article is a redirect from "Linnean nomenclature", so if someone arrives there via this route, then the material you removed would be relevant. On the other hand, at present the alternative spelling "Linnaean nomenclature" redirects to a different article, Linnaean taxonomy! It's a complete mess, which a sensible editor would probably steer clear of, but which I find I can't quite leave alone, but equally can't quite see how to sort out. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Raphanobrassica
My understanding was that ×Brassicoraphanus (named for diploid hybrids) had precedence over ×Raphanobrassica (named for the allopolyploid radicole); there's an article in Cruciferae Newsletter 9: 11-12 (1984) on this topic, but it's not online, so I can't check it out.

However IPNI has neither name in its database; it is not immediately obvious whether this is because they were not validly published, or for some other reason. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sorbus fosteri"
Hi Nadia, I saw your note about S. fosteri's missing binomial authority, and started searching across the web (I'm sure you were searching a lot of the usual places too). Almost all I could find were numerous hits for variations on this (a book from VDM Publishing, a most unreliable publisher). The external link in the article, to kevockgarden.co.uk has many Sorbus species on it, and they all look rather standard (i.e. Sorbus epithet). But some, like S. fosteri, were followed by code like this: mf96072. What the hell is that? Does it look like anything you have ever seen in your experience? Maybe some sort of pre-naming name code or something? (if that makes any sense). BTW, www.kevockgarden.co.uk and Wikipedia related are the only other links I could find for S. fosteri.

Other query terms I looked under that turned up zip were:
 * Sorbus fosterii
 * Sorbus × fosteri
 * Sorbus × fosterii
 * Sorbus hupehensis var. fosteri
 * Sorbus hupehensis var. fosterii
 * Aria fosteri
 * Aria fosterii
 * Micromeles fosteri
 * Micromeles fosterii
 * Pleiosorbus fosteri
 * Pleiosorbus fosterii

A look at the creator of the article's contribs, and reading samplings his/her other articles was bizarre.

I conclude the article should be deleted on the grounds that it's subject could not be proven to exist, and is therefore beyond non-notable. What do you think? Hamamelis (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Crataegus mollis
Apologies for that and thanks for catching it. I had been using a script that didn't recognize the relatively new  parameter. I'll go back through and make sure I didn't do the same to other articles. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Musk strawberry
Hello. I hope that soon, see the page better photography Fragaria moschata - Musk strawberry. The photo that is there now is very misleading. Sincerely.--Dendrofil (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for correcting my mistake on "Quince". I checked, but quickly and somehow not the right way. Normally, I'm more of a Wiki sloth. SeoMac (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rosemary
Hello Nadiatalent, please have a look at my last edit there, hope you can live with this Lotje ツ (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Prunus
Hello Nadiatalent, Thanks for your message. The file of the first image has been deleted and replace by an image with the correct name Prunus serrulata. Best regards. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change in the two files. Now I know that I could call on your friendly expertise in botany. Thanks for your cooperation. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi,