User talk:Rkitko/Archive2

Cooperatives under Tito?
Rkitko :

Are you sure we are speaking about co-operatives? When we hear about self-management in the Socialist Yugoslavia, people are speaking not on co-ops but on state -or cities/towns- owned enterprises.

If there was really an important co-op movement in Tito´s Yugoslavia, that would be an interesting new for me.

Thank you,--ZUIA2 22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rkitko:

Thank you by your message. I don´t understand. The text you reverted was this one:

"No really co-operatives, but state owned and workers controlled autonomous enterprises were also successful in Yugoslavia under Tito where Workers' Councils gained a significant role in management".

So, if there´s no problem about the text, I´ll try to remake it again.

Thank you very much.

--ZUIA2 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Stylidium carnivory
Hi Rkitko,

just in case you don't know it already: http://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/plantbiology/doi/10.1055/s-2006-924472

Regards, Denisoliver 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to know you haven't read it already. If you would send me a copy, that would be great. I guess you sill have my email-adress? Denisoliver 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How are things coming with the protocarnivorous plant article? It would be nice to get that one up and running soon. Someone put the carnivorous plant article up for peer review, so I'll be working on that some in the coming weeks. It would be nice to get some articles up to FA level, and we have a handful of candidates that can get there with just a little concerted effort.

I'm impressed that Stylidium are only one small step away from being considered carnivorous! That article will be getting more attention from the CP and botany community in the near future as news of these findings spread, so you're effort on that article will pay off! :) --NoahElhardt 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Compliance and ethics program
I want to thank you for your edits and user links. I'll be getting back to cleanup soon - am headed out of town and won't be online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaesche (talk • contribs)

Carole 07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (ETA Yeah, I'm sleepy. Forgot to sign.)

Hitachi entries
I appreciate your help with the entries I've created. My aim is truly not to violate the terms of usage here on Wikipedia. I have read the articles you referred me to (the Welcome Page, etc.), but it is hard to determine what that means in my particular case. Maybe we could work together in understanding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Perhaps using findings from the State of Corporate Citizenship Report by The Hitachi Foundation would be useful in the Corporate Social Responsiblity post? Is there no way an organization can contribute to Wikipedia on issues that it deems relevant? If I find other sources to back up the M-Powered Project entry, would it make it more balanced? If Stephen Colbert can have a Wikipedia entry on a word that he made up, can't there be an entry on an actual project that a company has put into place :) ? I'm trying to think of this as an encyclopedia, and I can honestly see an entry on the M-Powered Project. I'll repeat my question. Is there no way an organization can contribute to Wikipedia on issues that it deems relevant? Thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julieatrci (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Forgot to sign the entry! Julieatrci 14:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation!
Hello, I saw your edits to Biology and sexual orientation and the talkpage of WP:LGBT, and I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We'd be delighted to have you! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitachi Edits
The "The" in The Hitachi Foundation is part of its official title. The M-Powered Project was supposed to be redirected, but it does not show up in any search, and neither does The Hitachi Foundation. I was not notified of any AfD on my Watchlist. Do you know where these pages could have gone? Thanks. Julieatrci 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons account
For voting purposes for the 2006 Commons photo of the year, I am indeed Commons:User:Rkitko, this being my main account and home wiki. --Rkitko 05:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment to: Your edits to Corporate social responsibility
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Rkitko 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm terribly sorry if the link added was interprated as some sort of promotion for any commercial product, or inappropriate in any way. I will discuss it in the talk pages as you suggested. I just felt I had to give a short explanation: the three part documentary called the Corporation, is perhaps the most comprehensive documentary (and Docu. series ) ever made (on Corporations and their role in society, hence / therefore directly related to their social responsibility in society (cause and effects)). it is currently in the public domain (freely downloadable) and it is not a commercial product as such, even though one is able to buy it ( just as any book referenced as source in any given wiki article. on joining the url/page for the documentary, there is a short flash introduction with voice where the creators authors of the documentary explains that their work is freely downloadable but that they encourage you to support the work, much like amnesty or any other creator of any given freely available work would and does in any other area or line of work. The Corporation analyses thouroughly the modern Corporation and interviews "both sides", with representatives such as Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and many others. I suggest you take the time to at least watch 15 minutes of the documentary, much like you would browse through any book or link given as a source. Sorry to add this but it seems to me and I feel, that  much of wikipedia have become overzealous in its attempt to become more narrow and somehow "mainstream", by refusing anything and everything that isn't as "official" and centrist in much the same way as the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is in my opinion a terrible loss. If I wanted Britannica's conservative comercial POV's I'd buy it. This is not Britannica, and if Wiki is supposed to have any credibility in the future or indeed be of any significant value for future generations it also has to carry dissent  from the official, the government version and the "winners" side of the story. Now how one achieves this in a satisfactory way I am not wise enough to suggest, but somehow believeing that a totally centrist "objective" view of the world tells "the truth" is both far from honest or accurate.


 * Wikipedia itself shows in a very appropriate way that "even" Britannica cannot avoid being biased. (For a better(?) "explanation" of this point see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492)


 * Well that (this) became a bit long-winded and english is not my mother tongue but perhaps some point gets across even so. Bear with me if you can. There's a lot more ( and a lot more precise things) to be said on the subject, and its an important debate for either side of the political spectrum to be aware of and to try to come to terms with. I feel that in a democratic world and spirit "both"(all three) 'sides' should be granted some space, since it's a fairy tale that some kind of objective centrist truth exists "in the middle". Jürgen Habermas springs to mind now for some reason. Anyhow. that's enough said. For now. Cheers, and dont let yourselves be offended. It's not worth it. Cheers. John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protocarnivorous plant
'Twas my pleasure. :) It is a truly fine article! Mgiganteus1 15:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my praise: well done on the article! It seems well balanced, cited, and illustrated. Are there any sections you still plan to add or expand in the future? --NoahElhardt 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated!
Hey there. Thanks for fixing my userboxes. I was jumping from userpage to userpage trying to find someone with those boxes to copy their code. You saved me a lot of time, haha.

I see we're looking over the same article. I think the article can be greatly improved upon and sourced better. I noticed a few sentences yesterday that seemed like they were tacked on by someone with a POV, as they didn't seem to flow well with the paragraphs and they had no sources. But after noticing much of the article doesn't have sources, I put them back in and put citation tags. I'll try to find the exact criticism that is claimed, and if I can't, I think I might just go ahead and remove it again. Let me know what you think about this. I was also thinking about adding some information:

1. Making a small sub-section mentioning the fact that over 1500 species have been observed to practice homosexuality, elaborating, and linking to Animal sexuality.

2. Adding to and rounding out the twin studies that Bailey and Pillard have done. As of now, the article only mentions the difference between MZ and DZ twins, yet "11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual" Adoption studies are important in twin studies in teasing out environmental factors. Also, Baily and Pillard did a study a few years later on twin sisters, with similar findings. I was thinking about adding that. Also, research has suggested MZ twins (even ones seperated at birth) oftentimes end up having very similar likings/preferences. I'm sure this could somehow be tied in.

3. I think a Misconceptions or similar section could be made, especially in regards to the mention of a "gay gene" and its perpetuation through popular media. In fact, some of this article has sentences concerning adaptation that almost imply that there's some commonly held view that if homosexuality was genetic, that it would somehow be from one gene. I'm quite positive that the consensus is that this is not the case and that if it does have a genetic basis, that it's presumed to be a polygenic process. And that singling out the specific genes would take years to perform and millions of dollars in research.

4. I think including more research on various parts can help round it out. I found a critical review of research done on this and will peruse it to find anything relevant, and see if I can fit some stuff in.

I also read Choice and sexual orientation and noticed that it is rather scarce in content. I think a lot could be contributed to it, specifically philosophical views on free will and the sort. If you're interested or know someone who is, let me know what you think of all of these points. I think I can do some significant work to these articles in the coming weeks, assuming I'll have some time. --Ubiq 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

my user page
Hey there, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page while I was offline. -Dark Dragon Flame 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Cheers, --Rkitko 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BotanyBot errors
Your bot has been doing a fine job, but recently marked some pages not belonging to WP Plants (ex. Usnea rubicunda and Usnea). Was this intentional? --NoahElhardt 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be because Category:Lichens is a subcategory of Category:Plants. If these are not plants, then it is the categorisation that's wrong. Hesperian 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd miss some! I generate the lists using AWB that the bot then runs on, tagging everything that doesn't already have a tag. I must have included Category:Lichens and its subcategories. Thanks for catching this. I'll go back and remove those and I'll try to be more careful upon the next edit. Thanks again! --Rkitko 08:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There we go. I removed the tag from everything in that category. Let me know if you find any others. I'm trying to tiptoe around all of these (sometimes misplaced) subcategories that don't belong to our project and I'm bound to miss a few. I'm keeping a log of all the ones I skip, even if they are quasi-questionable. I'll post them when completed for individual review to see if any of the articles within those categories pertain to WP:PLANTS. Thanks! --Rkitko 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

{C|c}lass
Every single WikiProject uses quality categories of the form Category:FA-Class plant articles (i.e. capital "C" for "Class"), but importance categories of the form Category:Top-importance plant articles (i.e. lower case "i" for "importance") for importance. Ridiculous. WP:PLANTS is the only exception, using lower case for both. Although it is trivially obvious that we are right and everyone else is wrong, I do wonder whether us being different is likely to upset some of the assessment bots. This is just food for thought; no need to respond or leap into action. Hesperian 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, when I was setting up the template, I copied and pasted from so many places I can't remember where the lower-case class categories came from, but at least I was consistent! I did the same with WP:CPS assessment. And looking over this list of articles I see that WP:PLANTS isn't alone. For example: Category:FA-class Munich articles, Category:FA-class Radio articles (why a capital "R" for radio?), and Category:FA-class Italy articles. I don't think the assessment bot has any trouble with case-sensitivity. It seems to be doing a fine job with those WikiProjects and WP:CPS as well as the initial WP:PLANTS. Good eye, though, I never would have seen that! --Rkitko 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Plants article class
I think 3 class should be added for lists: SL (Start/stub/incomplete lists), List (normal lists) and FL (featured list, such as List of basil cultivars). Putting lists (and we ave anumber of them) in article classes is weird. Circeus 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was thinking about that the other day when I came across our that featured list. The assessment bot will, of course, miss those and won't report them on our assessment table, which is probably a good thing since we don't want to inflate the "FA" category with pages that aren't articles. I'll make Category:List plant pages with sub-cats: Category:FL-class plant lists and Category:SL-class plant lists. Lists that aren't featured or stubs will categorize into Category:List plant pages (I see no reason to create a Category:List-class plant lists unless you do. It seems a bit redundant.) Sound good? Thanks for bringing that up! --Rkitko 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "List-class lists" is pretty redundant XD.Circeus 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not rating lists by importance? I would have been inclined to replace Category:List plant pages by Category:Plant lists by quality and Category:Plants lists by importance. Hesperian 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another excellent point! I hadn't considered that this morning before I had my coffee. I suppose I'll have to create Top-L-importance, High-L-importance, etc. (L for "list") in the main template space (i.e. Top-importance). Do you see any problem with doing that for use on only one WikiProject? I haven't created many templates, so I'm not aware of naming conventions or deletion policies. Those are my only concerns. Otherwise it's a great idea, although some may argue it adds unnecessary complexity to the project banner. We do have so many lists in our project, though! It could definitely be used. --Rkitko 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you want Top-L-importance? Top-importance doesn't categorise - it merely produces a pretty coloured box with the word "Top" in it. Unless you're determined to make Top-class lists show as a different colour to Top-class articles, you should be able to use Top-importance for both. Hesperian 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't figure out a way in the syntax of the template to rate a list as "Top" without it categorizing it into Category:Top-importance plant articles. Is there a way?
 * Using will use Template:Top-importance but it will also recognize and categorize it into Category:Top-importance plant articles. If you use different syntax, such as , the template as it's currently set up will try to use Template:Top-L-importance for the colored notice on the left hand side of the template and can be told to categorize it under Category:Top-importance plant lists. Is there some way to use a "list=yes" parameter to shift the way the template recognizes the "Top" parameter so it will still use Template:Top-importance but use a different category? I'm at a loss, but I'll keep tinkering with it in User:Rkitko/sandbox5 to see what I can do. --Rkitko 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this can be done. I'm no expert on template coding but I'll figure it out eventually. Meanwhile, you can solve your problem by turning Template:Top-L-importance into a redirect to Template:Top-importance. Hesperian 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, with the "list=yes" parameter, I can only get it to add the "Top-importance plant lists" category. Can't figure out a way to remove the "Top-importance plant articles" category. See User talk:Rkitko/sandbox for the example. I'm no expert in template coding either, but I can look at an example of one working and cobble together one for my own purposes. Know of any WikiProjects that sort their lists by importance and quality? --Rkitko 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you nest switches? You need something like
 * Can you nest switches? You need something like


 * Hesperian 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary to segregate lists by importance. I've been rating them (ALL of them that were in the unassessed cat, anyway) and using the exact same criterion I'd have sued for articles. I think quality was the only distinction needed there. Circeus 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I still think Category:List plant pages should be named Category:Plant lists by quality for consistency's sake. Hesperian 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll give up (for now). Still bugs me that I can't figure out how to do it. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow with fresh eyes. I'll update the template to reflect the change for consistency. Thanks for all your help today! --Rkitko 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Santonin
The article santonin is most certainly not within the scope of WikiProject Plants. Please check your bot edits for other mistakes. Thanks, Cacycle 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I generate the lists that the bot tags using AWB from subcategories of Category:Plants. Santonin was misplaced in Category:Asteraceae. I try to catch all of the misplaced articles in those subcategories (like the entire subcat Category:Synthetic resins) but with over 8,000 articles and counting, I'm bound to miss a few. Thanks again, I'll double check Category:Asteraceae for other articles that don't belong there. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

UglyRipe & Grape Tomato
Hi Rkitko, I wanted to see if you could help me with these articles (for selfish reasons :-)). I don't know if you can help so sorry if I am in the wrong place. These entries need to be more objective and have some citing. I am a bit green :-) to this but believe that this material is notable and encyclpopedic. Any thoughts?--Agrofe 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I'd love to try and help, but I have to admit I'm not much of a horticulturalist. My main focus is plant anatomy and taxonomy in a few genera. But I can direct you to WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. You can ask there to see if anyone is willing to put in some time on the article. You're right that it looks notable. There are plenty of articles on varieties, cultivars, and brand names of horticulturally signficant plants. Best thing of all is to be bold and go at it yourself. Check out your library and see what you can find on this subject. If you can find a reference for the offending passages like "some say," then remove them (you can copy and paste them to the talk page to be searched for later if you want, too). Review WP:CITE and WP:V for information on verifiability and citing sources. I try to use print sources (books, journal articles, newspaper, etc.) rather than websites because the "authority" of a website is so often disputed with a select few exceptions. But go at it and see what you can come up with. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Subproject banners
I had sort-of suspected it, but not really noticed it until I was done with the GA stuff. Is the automatic downgrading of articles revertable? Because in a few case, we might want to have the same importanc. Circeus 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was worried about, too. I think this was just a quick fix. I'll discuss it with WP:BANKSIA and WP:CPS and see what they think about adding the "plants_importance=" parameter to the subproject banners to manually assess the pages so we can avoid the problem of an auto-assess that's incorrect for WP:PLANTS. --Rkitko (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it highly unlikely that we'll have more than a few articles in such a case (haven't encountered any myself yet), but thinking ahead is usually a good idea on wikipedia.Circeus 16:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've only read this half of your thread, so apologies if I've misunderstood. In the case of WP Banksia: yes, the auto-assess was a quick fix. Yes, there should be a plants-importance parameter. Earlier this month a genus of about 90 species got transferred to Banksia, so we have our work cut out for us at the moment. I'll get back to the template eventually. Or feel free to have a crack at it yoursel(f/ves) if you want to. Hesperian 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP Banksia and Talk:Banksia epica. Looks pretty good, if we do say so ourselves, huh?

Re: your side comment, it's interesting to get an outside (Australia) view. I'm not a botanist (but I bet you can tell I wish I was) so I can't offer an inside view. I think, as you say, the Flora of Australia series gave systematic botany in Australia a heap of impetus. But it seems to me that a lot of recent taxonomic revisions have been driven by phylogeneticists trying to align the taxonomies with their phylogenies; I imagine that would be a worldwide trend rather than just Australia. If you're interested in pursuing this discussion with someone who actually knows what they're talking about, try PDH.

If you should find yourself in need of articles from Nuytsia or other Western Australian or Australian journals, feel free to ask. There's not much I don't have access to.

Hesperian 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Trademark etiquette
Thank you for your invitation to comment. I have indeed replied, arguing that the trademark distinction serves a useful purpose in horticulture, but don't wish to contravene Wiki regulations I've been too indolent to read. Regards Ptelea 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Durio kutejensis
Hi, Durio kutejensis was a stub article and it didn't tell much more about the species than what is told on List of Durio species (if I recall correctly), hence the merging. If you see some possibility for expansion, you are more than welcome to revert my redirecting. Thanks for the compliment on Durian. --BorgQueen 06:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to take up all the hard work, I don't see why not. :-D --BorgQueen 07:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking around on Featured lists, and it seems that most, if not all, of them have a short description for each species. See List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain or List of basil cultivars, for example. --BorgQueen 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors in the wind...
http://www.2007.botanyconference.org/engine/search/index.php?func=detail&aid=18 --NoahElhardt 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

STOP EDITING THE CB WEST PAGE
It is apparent that you do not know much if anything about this school and I am asking you I the nicest way I can think of to please stop editing this page. You live in Washington, and unless you can prove that you know anything about the school, I am asking you to stop reverting my edits. If you do not like my comments on the discussion page, then just get over it. I wouldn’t react with such anger if you weren’t completely wrong about everything you have done to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeRunsCBWest (talk • contribs)


 * Are you qualified to edit this article? You still haven't convinced me that you are. You said you "edited out a few things in order to make the article a bit more encyclopedic", but in reality you removed important facts about the school. Do the reseach and you will find that CB West football holds a Pennsylvania record with 59 straight wins. They also have finished near the top of USATODAY.com's list of the top football teams in the nation many times in the 90's.( http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/football/year-by-year-rankings.htm ) You are following all the rules far to religiously and even the wikipedia pages say that any of the rules can be broken if it means that the article will be better.

And as for the personal attacks, get over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnakeRunsCBWest (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Durian FAC
Hi, I thought you might be interested in Featured article candidates/Durian. Thanks. --BorgQueen 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BotanyBot/sandbox2
Peta has today moved List of extinct Australian plants to List of extinct flora of Australia, and merged List of extinct flora of Western Australia into it. I would have updated User:BotanyBot/sandbox2 but I don't know what that list is actually for, and I don't want to break your bot or step on your toes. I shall leave it in your capable hands. Hesperian 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

 * ) --NoahElhardt 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)