User talk:Rkitko/Archive23

Utricularia setion names meaning
Hey Rkitko. I'm translating Utricularia entries to Chinese. With mgiganteus1's help, I get most of species name meaning of Utricularia, but lack setions meaning. So I hope to get some information about Utricularia setion names meaning. Could you help me?乌拉跨氪 (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm so glad that you are working on the translations. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can be of much help on the section name meaning. I know many of them are named in honor of people and others, like sect. Aranella, were formerly genera that were reduced to sections. I briefly looked at Peter Taylor's 1989 monograph on the genus and he doesn't provide much (or any) information on the etymology of the section names. In particular, I tried to look up the origin of Aranella further by going back to Barnhart's 1913 description and even he provides no reason for choosing the name. For others, it would require going back to their original descriptions, some of which I may not have immediate access to their articles and I'm afraid I don't have much time to work on this at the moment. Good luck, Rkitko (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.乌拉跨氪 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Input for proposed deletions
Hello Rkitko - as someone who has been involved with Nepenthes, do you have any impartial feedback on the discussions regarding the proposed deletions for Articles for deletion/Stewart McPherson (geographer) and Articles for deletion/Alastair Robinson ? Keeping those pages up to date has been a pet project of mine, so I can't really be called an impartial party, though I'll try to respond myself. Any thoughts either way welcome. Thank you for your time. Jeljen (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection
Cactus Does this still need to be protected? If you need to respond, please do so at my talk--otherwise, I think it's reasonable to simply remove protection from this page. Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

List of x species question
Hi, where would Salvia hybrids go - on their own list page, or on the List of Salvia species page? I'm being asked at User talk:First Light, so if you have a thought to share on it, could you do it there? thanks, First Light (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Dear Rkitko, thank you for your kind message on my talk page, which caused email to tell me to sign in again even though I've retired from the English wikipedia. I had no idea that you and Hamamelis were engaged in hand-to-hand combat for the dehiscence categories, if I'd known I would have tried to add some more, but I had given up in the face of the narrow-minded opposition. It is quite incomprehensible why they would be so determined to stamp out creativity in what is supposed to be a creative enterprise. Perhaps you are already familiar with Monty Python's "Self-Defense Against Fruit", which so perfectly captures what goes on in wikipedia, including the shrillness; it is an almost perfect dramatization of the dehiscence category story! This also seems relevant, it simultaneously shows why grenades are called grenades and that indehiscence is a more difficult term to pin down than one might have expected. I've just been explaining at Choess's talk page that I'm considering coming back in a small way with a non-gender-marked signon, but it is difficult to summon the enthusiasm to do very much work. Stay well, and best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nadia, it is an unfortunate reality of online endeavors, including Wikipedia, that has been documented. It is overwhelmingly male-dominated, which has influenced its argument-centered focus. So yes, I completely understand that one might always feel under attack here. I was disappointed to find that User:Alan Liefting, after his assault on the dehiscence categories, found a few articles on books by Neltje Blanchan that in the midst of automated editing he somehow found the time to thoroughly assess them as non-notable and nominated them for deletion. I'm thinking of gathering my thoughts on this, specifically in relation to WP:BEFORE as it seems he'd rather assume an article is non-notable (a typical deletionist) and send others scrambling to do the legwork that he should have done in assessing its notability before opening frivolous deletion nominations. Discussions for the relevant book articles are here, here, and here, if interested.
 * Again, thank you for your endeavors. I really enjoyed our discussions and interactions. And do stay in touch. Feel free to use the "e-mail this user" function. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category Schiedea
Hello! I started to create a page just now for Category:Schiedea. It's a genus of plants in the family Caryophyllaceae, commonly called the pink family or carnation family. But when I went to do it, I got a message that you had deleted such a category in 2010. It said something about how you'd upmerged a small category; it also referred to an empty category.

If I counted right, there are 16 species of Schiedea on the page Category:Caryophyllaceae. I thought it would make sense to bring them into their own category, as a subcategory of the larger one. But since you've already deleted a page, I wanted to ask you first; maybe it WAS empty then. Do you have any problem with me creating this category AND populating it?

Thanks. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! Yes, I remember these. I had been cleaning up after User:Polbot. The bot created thousands of new plant and animal articles and also created new categories. Often these categories would only contain one or two articles at the time, so it made sense to upmerge. (IMHO, the bot made the mistake of not checking first to see how many articles would populate a category before creating it and setting a lower bound. But hindsight, etc. etc....) Generally, I think I upmerged anything with less than 10 articles. 16 is certainly more than enough to be split from the large Caryophyllaceae. Go for it! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I might get back to it as soon as I finish Orobanche.  But for now, I'm calling it a night.  Uporządnicki (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge enlarged Dipterocarpaceae
Hello, How are you? I need your help. I ask you if you could enlarge Dipterocarpaceae more making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to "Dipterocarpaceae" and information about  "Dipterocarpaceae" existence on topics as trees articles in tropical articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know people that could be interested about Dipterocarpaceae article? They are welcome too. Thank you very much. Curritocurrito (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this user brought it up. I see the category page on Dipterocarpus (a genus within that family) badly needs rearranging.  That's what I'm here for!  Uporządnicki (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I can't be of much help. Dipterocarps are a bit out of my knowledge base. If I have the time I'll take a look. If you have reliable sources you could certainly be bold and begin to expand it yourself. Otherwise there are interested plant editors at WT:PLANTS that might be willing to help. Consider, however, that there are likely thousands of pages that need our attention. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please help
Hi. First, please understand that this note is not in the slightest intended to be offensive, indignant or anything adversarial, either overtly or snidely; it is a request for information. Secondly, my apology to Nadia has somehow got through to her in the context of a note from Choess, and been accepted, much to my relief. My question is because I found this remark from you on her talk page and I simply do not understand it; so much so that I am wondering whether there might not have been some interference with message content. You said in part: "...just now caught up with the offensive comment by JonRichfield. The mind boggles!" I do not ask you to justify this, but could you please refer me to the comment you have in mind, with or without elaboration? I realise that the intention of remarks in print might easily be misinterpreted, but I have no clue what you or anyone else might have in mind, and it bothers me. Thanks for your attention. JonRichfield (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jon, it was this comment. It clearly upset Nadia and I have to agree that if it was said of me, I would be offended. You begin alright by telling the newbie (Curritocurrito) that the other party (NadiaTalent) is "competent and conscientious." You could have stopped there. It's ok to have disagreements on content without suggesting the other party is impatient. Referring to impatience, you then go on to say, "some women are, you know!" A confusing statement, indeed. What was this meant to convey to the other editor? That Curritocurrito could disregard Nadia's edits because she's an impatient woman? You must understand that Wikipedia is not a very comfortable atmosphere for many women contributors. And further, our science of biology, including the discipline of botany, is still struggling to free itself of gender biases in its institutions. There are gender gaps in faculty hiring rates, men still hold more tenured positions in many institutions, etc. Can you see how such a comment generalizing women and impatience, belittling Nadia's contributions in the process, could be unwelcomed and perceived as offensive? I certainly thought it was. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Rkitko, I am sorry it came out that way. Without getting myself into still deeper waters by explaining what could no longer do much good, I really hope that it is clear to you that the impression I gave you was not the way I intended it. Please put it down to insensitivity rather than ill intention. My own attitude towards women since I began emerging from my first childhood has been one of comradeship and respect where earned, perhaps because I have largely been in a position where my contacts with them (mainly in biological and computing connections) have been such as to foster those views. I do not understand the roots of the WP/women problem and it saddens me that a prominent and competent woman participant should contemplate changing her ID to a gender-neutral one. Not that the gender of the ID matters in theoretical terms, but there must be something wrong where that can seem an attractive idea. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories, plants with dehiscent (indehiscent) fruit
Hi, I'm contacting you because I saw the CfD discussion about these categories. Wow. If the problem is that the categories need populating, do you think that the additions that I've just made in a rathe clueless fashion are a help or just too dreadful? I've tossed in some fruit types such as Achene as well as random taxa at ranks that are probably not the best choices for the list, in the hope that those could later be refined. More along those lines might present themselves as time goes on, so it seems advisable to ask your opinion before cluttering the category with such material. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the major problem was that the categories weren't populated. Some folks don't heed the advice that Wikipedia is a work in progress. I was actually thinking about how we might incorporate the different fruit types, but because the category names are "plants with..." perhaps the articles are fruit types aren't natural fits. On taxa, I was mostly working with genera, since the indehiscence/dehiscence character is usually stable within genera. You must be vigilant in finding good reliable sources that state the taxon is always indehiscent or dehiscent. If one species in the genus does not share that character, you shouldn't add the category to the genus article. Sometimes, a higher level taxon like family would be appropriate, but again be careful. There's more guidance at . I hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wild Flowers Worth Knowing
Thanks for your work. I've made a start on the even more notable Bird Neighbors. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't notice the other nominations. I'm rather annoyed at the seeming lack of effort on the nominator's part to search for notability, instead choosing to send other editors scrambling to do the real work while he puts up three articles for deletion and quickly moves on. Nice work on Bird Neighbors, by the way. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I expanded it a bit more -- it really was a pioneering book. I've also started on Wild Flowers: An Aid to Knowledge of our Wild Flowers and their Insect Visitors, which also passes WP:N, though it wasn't quite as notable as the other two. It was confusing because it had multiple titles. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just a note: it seems to me that the Little Nature Library series was published by the Doubleday company run by Blanchan's husband. Blanchan wrote Wild Flowers Worth Knowing and Birds Worth Knowing, but not Garden Flowers Worth Knowing, Trees Worth Knowing, or Animals Worth Knowing. I've modified the article accordingly. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Present
Present for you on my user page. 512bits (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This category is too long
I think the name of this category is too long: Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.)‎‎, I think it should be named Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) just like Category:Fauna of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), we have to consider that there is other Sierra Nevada in Spain: Sierra Nevada (Spain). --Noder4 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection conflict
There needs to be some sort of protection conflict warning. I guess it doesn't happen often... --  tariq abjotu  03:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the first time that has happened to me, too. Sorry about the mix-up. I agree with your three day protection, given the next-day airing of the show. Thanks for being on top of it! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)