User talk:Rkitko/Archive5

Plant evo-devo
Hey I think thats a good idea. what i'll do is put up things that I have in mind on the WikiProject Plant Evo Devo page and then jump in the plants discussion so that we can better address the issue...Thanks for the suggestion...!

Gauravm1312 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Plant evo devo
Hi Rkitko...have sorted out a list of topics to be included in WikiProject Plant Evo Devo. So there are actually 2 jobs one could do...generate development entries (i guess molecular pathways r not extensively convered in wiki) and specific evo-devo entries. there could be task segregation in these aspects, but right now, the subproject is just me. So, as of now, I will be focussing on molecular aspects, and generating entries as I move ahead...any ideas on that one? A Plant evo devo entry has been created..have a look...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravm1312 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

name title
have moved the page to a better and more formal name. Also, with regards to the images being used, I was wondering, how do we use images from research articles coz they are copyrighted, right? Is there an Image creation team on this project? If yes, how do I get the my images done? Gauravm1312 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy
The problem is, if the botanical community today is in confusion about a name, they've already checked the primary sources. If they can't make heads or tails out of the primary sources to settle the issue we can't on Wikipedia settle it from the original source. The problem is later research in the sciences does not always agree with the primary sources. The link is a notation about other authorities listed by authoritative sources, such as ING. This means that the original date and authority is Forster in the Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientarium Upsaliensis, etc., etc, the Swedish Royal Society natural science publication, is what I always think of it as. The cryptic note after this, "no mention of Linneaus as author could be found" probably means that although the plant is listed by the ING as giving C. Linnaeus, filius as the author, the authors of the web citation you posted (as the Aussies are want to do) went to the original source and did not find L.f. listed as the author or a prior author. The comment is merely a comment that although Forster is the authority, L.f. has been listed elsewhere, at the US National Herbarium, no less, as the authority, and a check of the original source does not include information that L.f. should be considered authoritative for this species. You can also ask Curtis--he is a taxonomist. When I write up the correct name of plants for listings I include notes like this, they're insider notes. KP Botany 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may butt in, my take on that note is that ING does contains an entry for "Forstera L.f.", but a search of L.f.'s publications does not yield a prior publication of that genus. The rules of botanical nomenclature barely existed yet in 1780. IIRC, one of the early issues that had to be thrashed out was whether author attribution should be given to the botanist who identified a plant as a distinct taxon and gave that taxon a name, or the botanist who first published a formal description of that taxon. These days, it is solved by the use of "ex"; e.g. "Banksia brownii Baxter ex R.Br.": Baxter named it, Brown described it. One convention that was established by then was that it wasn't proper to name a plant after yourself. My guess is that Linnaeus recognised Forstera as a distinct genus, and gave it its name, but didn't publish a description. Forster published the first description, and would have wanted to avoid any suggestion that he named it after himself, and didn't yet have the "ex" convention at his disposal, so attributed the name to L.f. The current name, then, should be "Forster L.f. ex G.Forst." But this is of course my own OR. Hesperian 03:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I must boast. I just found ING online. A search for Forstera yields an entry for "Forstera Linnaeus ex J. G. A. Forster". So there you have it. Hesperian 03:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ING's online. It says "Linnaeus ex J. G. A. Forster?"  This doesn't mean the son, does it?  He's always clearly distinguished as not his father.  This makes it even more confusing.  KP Botany 02:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that surprised me too. Hesperian 06:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

txbxes
Ok I went through the 'needing taxoboxes' list and there have been some hangers-on over there which haven't gotten sorted out yet. Some of them are hybrids and I thought I came across a 'needing hybrid taxoboxes' list a while back. Im not sure about the status of that list but Amandine potato, Angel wing begonia, Aprium, Olallieberry, and maybe Mission fig could be reassessed. The Kaulim and Uyot articles dont give you anything to go on so I would vote to delete them or remove the PlantProject tag and release them from our purview. Rest-harrow lists 2 species which this common name might apply to, Pearl onion is more like a food article than a plant article and, again, I think it just isnt enough to do anything with. Cocktail onion doesnt have a taxobox, maybe pearl onion can remain a plant article but without a box.Mmcknight4 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And on the talk page of Huerteales an editor wrote that the taxon is unclassified and Haptanthus is one of the "this name has been rarely recognized by taxonomists'' articles which is hard to classify.Mmcknight4 21:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Matipo
Why did you merge this back with Myrsine? Matipo only include a small part of Myrsine, and unless there is some strong reason why they don't deserve a separate page then they should be kept separate. It's especially misleading to include the list of New Zealand species as if that was the entire genus, when there are many more species in total. I think it would be much better if the genus page only included things that are applicable to the entire group, and things like species lists are left to separate articles on subgroups. I was planning to do this for the Hawaiian species soon. KarlM 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like we overlapped, I just saw your post on the Myrsine talk page. I see your point, but until there are actual articles for at least a large portion of the species (not just irritating stubs that people keep making, that only say "XXX is a species of tree. It lives in New Zealand"), it should stay as is. When those articles get done, then the thing to do would be to just remove the taxobox, leaving the article as a link to the species and descriptor for the New Zealand species in particular. I'm not a Myrsine expert so I don't know how applicable the descriptive characters are to the whole genus as opposed to only the New Zealand species, so I put them back with matipo. Hope this clears up my reasons for putting things back. KarlM 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Headers
Hi Rkitko - it looks like it has been removed now, but there at least used to be something which said that (particularly in short articles) where heavy ==Underlined headers== made the page look unwieldy, they didn't have to be used. I still consider that to be the case; an ==Underlined header== splits the page so heavily that it looks like it is to be regarded as completely separate from the page above the underline (much like the sections above here on this talk page are about completely separate topics). Contrary to popular belief (as implied by the mos#headers), lower ===Headers=== do not upset the page formatting, and look much better as they don't split the page apart with underlines; tables of contents are generated equally well with them. I can see no reason why heavy underlined headers have to be used. - MPF 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Where and when did you see this suggestion?" Quite a long time ago. I can't remember when. "perhaps you should ask for opinions on the guides" - I'll get round to that some time. On Chinese Chestnut, I disagree; the first editor used a mixture, but significantly, used caps for both the first mention of the name, and in the taxobox. Within 5 days of the article starting I moved the page to be in conformity with both this, and with all the other Castanea species pages; it then remained so for well over a year without any dispute until someone else (with no record of editing plant pages) changed every mention of the name, including those originally capitalised by the article starter. I note on your user page you comment regarding caps "though I do hope standardization will be achieved"; the current status quo with Chinese Chestnut at least achieves standardisation throughout the genus. It looks very odd to have one species treated differently to the rest, as if it were a distinct, lower case, lower class species. Obviously, at some time, all of the species pages will be moved to sci names, though it is a lower priority genus than many others which are already a messy mix of sci and eng names. - MPF 10:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment help request
Would you be able to search through all the articles currently assessed for WP:PLANTS and determine which ones are actually redirects? I've been finding assessments on redirect pages, and this seems like cleanup that could be automated--moving the assessment to the target talk page, or removing it if the target already has an assessment template. I'd do this myself except that I have so idea how to go about doing such a search or automating the replacement. --EncycloPetey 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you know whom to ask for help, and where to ask it, you already kow more about it than I do. I've never used a bot; all my editing is manual (or as manual as you can get while using a computer). --EncycloPetey 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburn pilot   talk  17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Malacologia journal
Since you're going to the library of the University of Michigan, I've a request for you, not for WP:PLANTS, but for WikiProject Gastropods. Since 2005, there has been a new global taxonomy for the gastropods and I've found it only in shortened form on the internet. I've used the taxonomy of Ponder & Lindberg from 1997 when I wrote the article about Gastropoda, but this has been superceded now by the new taxonomy of Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005, published in Malacologia;international journal of malacology; vol.47:no.1/2(2005). This journal can be found in the Museums - Mollusks Division Library | call number, QL 401.M22

If you could copy that journal and transform it into a pdf, it would be a great help. JoJan 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

University of Michigan Library
The search function on the library's website isn't working for me at the moment. Fortunately, I searched before and I remember two publications interested me:


 * Macfarlane, J.M. 1908. Nepenthaceae. In: A. Engler Das Pflanzenreich IV, III, Heft 36, 1–91.
 * Verrill, A.E. 1880. The cephalopods of the north-eastern coast of America. Part I. The gigantic squids (Architeuthis) and their allies; with observations on similar large species from foreign localities. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Sciences 5(5): 177–257.

These are both pretty long (90 and 80 pages respectively) so of course I don't expect you to copy them in their entirety. However, any illustrations you could get would be great! Thanks, Mgiganteus1 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should've checked. There's no point copying something that's already available, of course. Regarding Macfarlane's monograph, could you copy the descriptions of N. anamensis, N. beccariana, N. copelandii, N. deaniana, and N. philippinensis in full? That would be great! Mgiganteus1 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I sent you an email. I'd be interested in anything you have from the 1880 publication. Thanks, -- Mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dipterocarps
Thanks for the fixes on the Dipt pages. The plan is to get all Dipts onto Wikipedia (and check the ones listed there – as there were/are a few synonyms) and link these to IUCN redlist pages. Some Dipts are currently not on the IUCN redlist - however, Ashton (2004) lists them as endangered/vulnerable – so is it okay to use this source? I could check with Peter to see why he didn’t include them on his IUCN assessment and get confirmation from him as to their status. After that I then hope to try and sort out the Dipt biology/general information and have a range of photos (mainly Sabah Dipts) to upload.

I’m off to a conference (Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation – Asian Chapter) in Kuching, Sarawak in April 2008 and was wondering if you want to promote the WikiProject:Plants there – thru a poster presentation. In general the pages covering tropical plants/ecology are fairly bare (with the exception of the Durian page) and could do with the input of a few tropical biologist. Sepilok2007 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Michigan trip
Hope I'm not too late, but I've been sick most of this past weekend and so haven't tried to do anything that involved too much thinking.

Could you photocopy some portions of the following article for me?


 * Piippo, S. 1990. Annotated catalogue of Chinese Hepaticae and Anthocerotae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 68: 1-192.

The portions I'm interested in are:
 * 1) Abstract
 * 2) References cited
 * 3) Maps at the outset (if any) that summarize geography covered in the article
 * 4) The section on Marchantiales (if separated from other groups in the article); if not I'd be happy with the pages covering Monosolenium
 * 5) The section on Anthocerotae

Thanks, --EncycloPetey 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've sent you an e-mail address. Please let me know when you've replied and sent the files, in case something misfires. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Plants and Transpiration
Thanks for your comment regarding WP:OR. I see botany/taxonomy also runs into the, "If experts seem to agree on this how is it not verifiable" issue. I regret barely citing my contributions to the rain garden page in particular. I hope to correct that when my MS paper/degree is done. I’ll need to trace back direct sources to origins and find more widely published or rigorously peer reviewed citations. All the fluff on rain gardens makes it hard to find the hard facts.

I see how citing non-pear-reviewed contributions to professional journals, Watershed District pamphlets, and books published directly by local non-profit organizations may not meet Wikipedia’s requirements. External links must be reliable ones. There is much to learn here.

I'm no botanist, yet need plant characteristics for simulation models, so plants are a shared interest. Basic physiologic traits such as (C3,C4,C3-CAM), conductive tissues (arenchyma, recessed stoma), stomatal conductances, leaf area indices, minimum growth temperatures, and desiccation tolerances of native plants can be very hard to track down.

Often, I don’t care about precise floristic or evolutionary taxonomy, since model plant functional groups (PFGs) need only reflect function. Many details are discovered then forgotten, or so obvious to experts that they forget to mention them for people like me unfamiliar with even the form of plant discussed.

I mention this to encourage you to include some obvious plant characteristics, beyond what one finds at http://plants.usda.gov/ Brian Ashman 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It is probably fair to say that the majority of here (including me) are largely concerned with systematics. We direct our efforts towards creating articles on more and more and more taxa, giving little attention to meatier botanical topics such as plant anatomy, morphology, physiology, biogeography, even ecology. Hesperian 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Sorry for the interjection Rkitko. I was looking at your Michigan trip thread both here and at the WP:PLANTS talk page, and confused my Firefox tabs i.e. I thought I was posting to WP:PLANTS. Hesperian 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:HEAD concern
Hi, Firs! Thanks for engaging in that discussion with me and Rlevse on his talk page earlier. It was very illuminating and you both are excellent admins. I happened to notice this contribution after you left a suggestion for the user to stick to WP:HEAD. I would have left a note reminding the user of the headings style guide, but I thought it in bad taste given our past discussions. I also wanted to make someone else aware of it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:HEAD does that edit violate? Firsfron of Ronchester  16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In particular, "Nest headings correctly. The hierarchy is as follows: the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title; primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on." This is also spelt out Guide to layout. I have even asked for clarification on the MOS talk pages here and here. The few responses I received confirmed what the guide lays out. In that diff, Rotational used H3 instead of H2 as the primary headings. In other edits, he'll use H4 as the primary. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Do you really think not adding two more equal signs requires administrator intervention? Firsfron of Ronchester  17:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you should drop a note on his talk page, given your history. The user already feels upset and like he was blocked without reason, and a note from you asking him to add two extra equals signs will not make him feel any better. If you must make the corrections at all (and I'm not sure that's the case: MOS is just a guideline, to be treated with some common sense and the occasional exception), do so in a way that won't upset him (for example, immediately changing a page he edits would be a bad idea, and could be viewed as "wikistalking").
 * Considering this user contributes good content to Wikipedia on obscure but encyclopedic natural history topics, I'd prefer not to see him driven off the project because of very slight formatting issues. And considering the junk my section of natural history gets, you can probably imagine why I'd hate to see good editors (those with a grasp of basic spelling and prose) leave the project. If this becomes an ownership issue, please alert me. If the user just has a problem distinguishing the size of headings, it's not really that big of a deal: he's not working on Featured Articles, after all. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject CP
Hey Ryan, it would be my pleasure; thanks for extending the invitation. Good work on this project, by the way; it's come along leaps and bounds in the last two years - certainly of far greater value than it used to be, though there's plenty more to be achieved, Nepenthes no exception! Take care, Attenboroughii (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining us! I look forward to more of your excellent contributions on CPs. I love your navbox, by the way. Fantastic icons. Oh, and if you weren't aware of it, we also have a WikiProject Plants. Let me know if I can help you out with anything here on Wikipedia. And again, welcome! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out; I've already read through the WikiProject Plants blurb and am happy to see the green chaps getting the attention they deserve. I was a member way-back-when, but it's been so long that the system is barely recognisable to me.  All encouraging though, and I appreciate the offer.  Does that extend to knitting?  I'm a sometime serial scarf-maker near Christmas time, but much beyond that and it all goes to hell! G'night, --Attenboroughii (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image upload?
According to | Public Domain Pictures Blog, this picture of Pedicularis furbishae (http://dls.fws.gov/DATA/files/5E161E87-E00C-4AF2-A6B696352A3B80D8.jpg) is public domain because the federal government made it. It also turns out you need an account to upload pictures. Could you upload that picture and add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.123.25 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tall Dropseed
So I'll mv pages to the scientific name title in the future, OK? As regards genus pages, I tend to link to the common name that seems most common and/or makes most sense. That way, it is easy to check for redirects. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance
Do you know whether the importance ranking of Core is used only by the 1.0 assessment team (and realted teams) or whether it is general to all assessment projects? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it can be set as core=yes, then that might be a better solution. Odd that you can't find documentation either, though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We can always change it later, too. Next question would be if we want a notice like the "needs-taxobox" parameter. Something like: "This page has been identified as a core topic for WP:PLANTS" or something similar. And if so, choose a color for the background :-)
 * Well, that all depends on whether the "core" designation is reserved to the WP Assessment team, doesn't it? It's why I asked whether we can designate articles ourselves as such, or whether that would just lead to confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was also planning on maybe changing the category for needs-photo to to better represent all of the image requests in that category. SB Johnny and I discussed this a bit on WT:PLANTS, but we didn't really come to a conclusion or get other input. I would then take care of the 21 articles in  and turn it into a category redirect with instructions on how to use the needs-photo or needs-image parameter in the plants banner. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the new name better, or perhaps to tie in with the name of the project WP:PLANTS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and for the sake of consistency across those "needing" categories. We do have some non-plant articles in that category, mostly botanists. I could see it as an easy stretch, though. Rkitko (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The danger in using "botany" is that we attract fungus and algal protist listings as well. It's a trade-off either way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uyot
Following your suggestion I added delete tags to Kaulim and Uyot and whomever reviewed them decided they were worth keeping. It was probably my fault for being vague about the reason but even now, the Articles for deletion/Kaulim and Articles for deletion/Uyot which you started have some people suggesting they be kept. I will add commentary there if you think it will help the process but the bottom line in my mind is that you and myself and other plant editors have looked at these and made an effort to do something with them and we have decided we cant make a plant article with the sparse info provided. Itseems to be the case that some folks think Google hits make for a de facto keep but Ive googled kaulim and uyot getting a hundred results per page and scrolled through many such pages (as others probably have) to conclude these are a certain 'delete'. My point is I dont think its practical to invest any more time and effort on these things. If the delete is successful, great, if not I say remove the plant project tags and forget about them, no sense in pouring more time/effort/conversation into these dead-ends when editors could be focusing on valid material (like articles needing taxoboxes).Mmcknight4 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've voiced my opinion in the matter ;) --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosid stubs
My, these are a bit of a mess. I took a look around to see what families could be split from existing orders, and discovered that the problem is worse than that. Currently, the Rosales stub category includes all the Pittosporum stubs, but that genus is in the Apiales under APG II. The Malvales stub category includes many members of the Oxalidales. The Malpighiales includes lots of Cucurbitales. All of these seem to be the result of Polbot, so not only are the stubs wrong...the taxoboxes will be wrong as well. :P

I think a new Cucurbitales-stub and Oxalidales-stub will greatly reduce the size of some of the larger rosid stub categories, but it will involve hunting down the articles and fixing taxoboxes. I won't have much time for stub sorting the next couple of weeks, but have put in some notes, ideas, and suggestions on User:BotanyBot/Plant_stubs. And by the way, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for setting up that page. The Stub Sorting group used to keep track of the sizes of all the stub categories, but it just became too much work to maintain. I always thought it was a useful idea, so I'm glad to see it resurrected for the plant stubs, at least. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - I think a Nepenthes-stub would be useful, yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all the stubs you created are very useful. I created that user subpage to make it easier to see which stubs might need splitting. To my surprise you found it and ran away with it. So thank you - I would probably have spent a lot more time making decisions on where to split if you hadn't stepped in. I never knew WP:WSS had tracked stub category size. It does seem like a good idea, but their scope is much larger than the scope of this list. I could see how it could get overwhelming. Though certainly a bot could easily check daily and generate reports. Anyway, I digress. I wanted to ask you, though, since you were creating all those stubs. Do we still need to propose stub types at WP:WSS/P? I know Alai trusts me with stub creation, but I think if I decide to split anywhere, I'll probably take it to that group.
 * The WSS proposal procedure is much loser today than it was two years ago when I started. (And given my long history with that group I'd be surprised if Alai didn't trust me with stub creation as well).  All the one's I've created would be speedied as following the pattern set down.  However, if there were a genus stub to make, I'd definitely propose and wait first, in part because a genus name can look like other things (where a family or class will have an ending that sets it clearly apart).  That's part of the prposal rationale -- to keep ambiguous names out of the mix, and as well to make sure they get listed on the official list (which I've been very careful to keep as up-to-date as I can, even for those stubs I wasn't responsible for).


 * As for using a bot to fix the Polbot mistakes, I'm not sure how that would work. What information would I need to supply?  For the Oxalidales and Cucurbitales, a list of pages could take almost as long to assemble as it would to edit them by hand, given the scattered nature of the stubs in question.  I'm not fluent in the genera of rosids, so I have to look up the family info each time to see where APG II put it; the rosids and asterids changed around a lot from earlier systems.  But, it is nice to know there's a stub-sorting bot.  If I had known about it before, I wouldn't have had to sort the Algae stubs by hand.  Almost all the green algae stubs were added by WillowW who used a reasonably good source with very good skill, so the taxonomy is mostly current (though I found two or three oddities that had to be fixed).  The bot could certainly tag the Nepenthes and Polygonaceae stubs, as they have correct taxobox information (well, except for the division which is "Tracheophyta" in all the Polbot additions of flowering plants). --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, isn't fully populated. For instance, I found Anisophyllea‎ wasn't in there after the bot run. Did you run it just through the or through  as well? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'm still finding some, such as Datiscaceae, which is correctly labelled but hasn't had the stub type switched. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point I've cleared most of, but there are three genera a bot could do faster:
 * Brunellia - stub as Oxalidales-stub
 * Cecropia - stub as Rosales-stub, fix taxobox order as well
 * Tropaeolum - stub as Brassicales-stub, fix taxobox order as well
 * Thanks. The bot misses a few, but it seems to handle long lists almost instantaneously, and certainly much faster than I can do by hand. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one two more for now: in the are a whole long list of Ficus and Pittosporum stubs.  The Ficus should all be stubbed as Moraceae-stub, and  the taxobox div/class/order fixed as well. The Pittosporum stubs should all be Apiales-stub. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirengeshoma
Thanks for catching the family error on that... it was under Saxifragaceae on commons (and on some other language wikipedias), and I didn't bother fact-checking it. I fixed it on commons, will try to track down the other wikipedias (though I'm afraid I'll be hopeless with the East Asian languages). -- SB_Johnny | talk  14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found that once Wikispecies and Commons are fixed, the information filters slowly into all the other Pedias. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Japanese citrus
There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input in view of your contributions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help: re: abutilon
I appreciate your suggestions and pointers. I am following up on them right now. Thanks for the follow up.--Markisgreen (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot help with stubs
First, could I get bot assistance finishing off the split of bromeliad-stub from Poales-stub? I've already transferred all the small genera (in stub numbers at least), but there are several large genera a bot could transfer faster. The taxoboxes should all be fine for these articles; just the stub needs to be changed for:
 * Aechmea, Guzmania, Pitcairnia, Puya, Tillandsia, and Vriesea

Yes, this could drop the size of down below 60, but if that happens I will personally repopulate the category with additional sedge stubs to bring the size back up.

Secondly, I've created the Nepenthes-stub. It would be an ideal job for a bot to move them all out of, since it's a single genus with a lot of stubs.

Finally, I proposed several new plant stubs on WP:WSS/P. See what you think. I've made a first stab at how to go about pruning by removing the Salicaceae. That would account for about 110 stubs, including those currently labelled as "Flacourtiaceae" thanks to Polbot. I've fixed the non-Salicaceae "Flacourtiaceae" already (mostly Achariaceae), but all the Salicaceae will need to have their taxoboxes fixed. If we make a Salicales-stub, then the stub could be added by bot at the same time the taxoboxes are corrected. The Chrysobalanaceae might be another group of stubs to pull out of the Malpighiales, but I don't know how many there are currently. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wham-Bam..
.., you already did it :) . Good work, Denis Barthel (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nepenthes vieillardii
Yep, it seems the IUCN has it misspelled. I've redirected the article. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot help with stubs, volume 3
Ryan,

I've created Lecythidaceae-stub and. Most of the stubs to be transferred are large blocks of stubs belonging to the same genus, so a bot is well-suited for the shift. Also, the taxoboxes need fixing. In addition to the usual Polbot problems with regnum, etc., the ordo should be Ericales instead of Lecythidiales as it is now. I've already transferrred the genus pages for Cariniana, Couratari Eschweilera, Gustavia (genus), and Lecythis (and fixed their taxoboxes), so just the species pages for these five genera need to be moved. There are a few other Lecythidaceae pages in if you want to hunt them down yourself, or I will take care of them this weekend. I've done all the minor genera now. -EncycloPetey 00:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - And have you considered becoming an admin? I'd nominate you if you like.

RfA
OK, You've got a nomination page set up for you at Requests_for_adminship/Rkitko. You just have to accept and answer the questions, then transclude the page on WP:RfA. If you need additional instructions, they're at Requests_for_adminship/nominate. Here's the official boxy template:

 EncycloPetey would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact EncycloPetey to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

The page is set up now. I know it will be stressful for the next week as the voting happens, but you should check in from time to time to respond to any optional questions posted. --EncycloPetey 19:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Next bot run
To help reduce the oversized, I created Ulmaceae-stub and. I think I've pulled all the oddly-named cultivars out, but there's still a very long list of articles named "Ulmus '[Cultivar]'", that perhaps BotanyBot could move faster. The articles are mostly cultivars, which won't have a taxobox. Those that are species have the wrong order (it should be Rosales, not Urticales), though it looks as if some or all have already been corrected. Fortunately, the way they alphabetize in the category puts all the non-cultivars at the end. Could you please move all these elms? I think it will mean about 180 fewer tree-stub articles. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always! --EncycloPetey 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Philcoxia, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot help with Category:Malpighiales stubs
I've been sorting out the Salicaceae stubs, and now am updating taxonomy for all of Polbot's entries categorized in Category:Malpighiales stubs. I've come across two genera with many species that could use a bot fix. Neither genus is in the Malpighiales under APG II, so both the taxobox and stub need to be corrected for all the pages in the genera: The latter also needs a genus page, and needs to have the genus link corrected. Right now, the genus for all these entries points to NASA via redirect. Should we use Nasa (genus), or commandeer Nasa from redirect to article, with a disambig link for the space agency? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Saurauia, which should be Ericales, and Ericales-stub
 * Nasa (genus), which should be Cornales and asterid-stub
 * Colura, huh? You could try seeing whether Rudolf M. Schuster did any papers on tropical Lejeuneaceae; I seem to recall that he did a run of papers on Lejeuneaceae.  He wrote a lot, but mostly on North American and antipodal species.  Other than that, you might have to track down and browse though individual floras, like the checkilist for China you copied some pages from for me.  However, I'm not sure there's a good list for any of the rest of continental Asia, and Kashyap's Liverworts of India doesn't seem to include the genus.  You could use the Index Nominum Hepaticarum, but it's a massive multi-volume work that doesn't tell you whether a name has been synonymized.


 * Schuster's chapter on "Comparative Anatomy..." in the New Manual of Bryology mentions the leaf modifications of C. lyrata Steph., and includes an illustration of a portion of that plant. W. B. Schofield's Introductory Bryology (p.165) also has a diagram of a leaf, but from C. inuii.  The flap structure that closes the leaf pouch is mentioned on p.314 in Chopra & Kumra's Biology of Bryophytes, but no species is named and there is little explanation.  The major texts on bryophyte ecology don't seem to mention possible carnivory at all.


 * Magill & Schelpe in The Bryophytes of Southern Africa include C. calyptrifolia (Hook.) Dum. and C. tenuicornis (Evans) Steph. Allison & Child's Liverworts of New Zealand lists only  C. saccophylla Hodgs. & Herz., which is the only species in that country.  Whittier & Whittier in '"Hepaticae of Southeastern Polynesia: A Preliminary Report" list C. superba (Mont.) Steph. and C. tenuicornis (Evans) Steph.  H. Hürlimann's "Hepaticae aus dem Gebiete des südlichen Pazifik, IX" lists (with nonstandard author abbreviations): C. acroloba (Mont.) S. J.-A., C. ari (St.) St., C. australiensis S. J.-A., C. conica (Sde.-Lac.) Goebel ex Grolle, C. fistulosa S. J.-A., C. leratii (St.) St., C. superba (Mont.) St., and C. tenuicornis (Evans) St.  Given the number of times S. J.-A. is listed as author, you might look for her works; that's S. Jovet-Ast and I think she's based in South Africa but I can't remember her first name.  You might also see whether a recent fascicle in the Bryoflora of the Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea (published irregularly in both Acta Botanica Fennica and Annales Botanica Fennici) covers this genus.  The most recent part of the series that I have is dated 1993, and by that point the Lejeuneaceae hadn't been treated yet.  You'd only have to look at the ones from 1993 onwards.


 * That exhausts the references I have easy access to. It's possible I've got other scattered bits in the form of reprints, but those haven't been organized for some time now; it's possibly a project for my Christmas vacation to sort and file them.  Hope that helps with what you're looking for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Let me be the first to congratulate you on becoming admin. You should get your new buttons as soon as a bureaucrat takes care of the several successful nominations for today. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! A very good candidate indeed. &mdash; Rudget speak.work 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, some have found the practice exercises at the new admin school useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

About your RfA
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hello Rkitko! Thank you for a slice of panettone! I really hope that you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! faithless  (speak)  04:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm - italian desserts. Can I have a small piece of each? Cheers, cygnis insignis 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Grazie
Hi! Thank you for the compliments! I've appreciated your carnivorous plant articles, so it has been a pleasure for me to translate them! I'm glad that you liked my efforts. If my English was better, I'll join your project, but I'm better in translation than in writing! Bye!--tursiops 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Best edit ever
I'm sorry to see that you took that off your user page. It was the singlemost memorable item the first time I visited your user page. I mention this because we just had what I would rate as Wiktionary's best edit ever. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Larval food plants of Lepidoptera
Hi, I recently saw your comment on the talk page above, and agree entirely. I'm trying to change them, but am unsure which should remain capitalized. Is "Abelia" a proper noun? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted a help request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants‎ per your suggestion, now that I have done those that I am reasonably sure about. Thanks! Storkk (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You make it look so easy
I was floundering around a good bit on the Eriogonum longifolium page and the former Harper's umbrella plant - now Eriogonum longifolium var. harperi page and you fixed a good number of problems in just a short while. Could you possibly give me a technical hint about how to fix the section edit functions on Astragalus so all the edit links don't bunch up and get in the way? I tried all the steps I could find in the help pages but didn't get the right combination to work right so just turned them off for the time being. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again!Trilobitealive (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS for Hieracium lachenalii and Agrostis gigantea
Thank you for looking those pages over and making them a part of the plant stuff here.

I have to assemble a lead section yet for Hieracium caespitosum but there are other more interesting problems with this one that I could possibly need some help with. It was written first, as an exercise in citation and second, as a reaction to Yellow Hawkweed. The more I became involved with assembling the information for that page, the more I became unhappy with Hawkweed.

As far as using common names go for this genus, I am quite certain that disambiguation pages will be needed. I actually can predict this from my own real life experiences. The scholars say that there are 10,000 or more species and subspecies, yet if you go to where they grow and ask one of the locals (which I was one) they will call theirs by one of those same few names.

I started to compile Hieracium caespitosum for two reasons. I did not like that only a single reference was used for Yellow Hawkweed and when I looked for other sources, I found (if I remember correctly) 15 synonyms for this species, which reduced the list of 880 to 866 and 1 other that hadn't been accepted yet. I made redirection pages for all of those synonyms as well. Then, I took advantage of the fact that Hawkweed was written with the common name as a title and started to compile Hieracium.

I tried to do things that made sense with the wiki software and what little I know about how the information all works together. If I could possibly find a photograph, a line drawing and a water color of every 'single species' (single species because I have a feeling about the synonyms after that first quick look) -- that would really be something. When I was playing in the open fields in which a few of these hawkweed grew, I found having these three different kinds of images to be extremely helpful for identification. This would be the honest word from an actual user and back then, it was a pain because to achieve the goal of the three different kinds of images, I had to use probably between 10 and 20 books and very few of them had photographs.

Also, in my mind and experience, the taxonomy stuff was not so useful as it is possibly being a point of contention. I don't even know if this is a subject that I should mention delicately or not, but I tried to quickly get my information from wikispecies and it did not work in the template here. I had a polite chuckle and put a quote from a great web site in finland about the taxonomy which is there. And here is what I am wondering about that: how can you even tell when you are following one school or another? To me, that is the rest of the quote there -- that it is so intricate now that one might not even know that they had 'jumped schools' or whatever.

The darkside of this for me is that this is an example of one of the big reasons I opted to study physics. Not too much memorization was required and in physics, there is Newton and Leibniz and the formula and the proofs were the same; Leibniz had prettier notation. That being said, when I was playing in the rural areas and I did not have health insurance, it was plant identification that seemed to matter more than taxo classification, Newton or Leibniz and I enjoyed that immensely!

But back to the wiki-stuff, it would be nice to know what to do before I make a bunch of pages that need a lot of fixing and any help would be appreciated.

Thanks for your time -- carol 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD for taxobox categories
I just wanted to notify everyone that participated in the original CfD and the deletion review that there is a new CfD to reverse the proposed changes to the taxobox categories.  Justin  chat 05:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Coconut charcoal and coconut healing oil
Reply: Thanks, sir, for your message. I will re-read the article, I will edit the same, and with due regard to copyright laws, I will shorten it, amend it, and use my own words using the links. I just wanted to make it long, since, here in the Philippines, many internet are so slow to open, hence opening the links would be too slow, hence, I copied some or about 15% and quoted words from the site. HENCE, I will amend IT and use my own words. Sincerely, and please check it and message me if there is a need for further amendment.

--Florentino floro (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Query
Can I rewrite both articles and use same images from WikiPedia Commons which was approved there which I uploaded since there are no other better pictures. Second, I registered in Commons and the username I used is Judgefloro http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Judgefloro I am Florentino V. Floro, and as I repeatedly stated, I had just learned computer last year May, 2006. I browsed through the internet, and it is very hard really to find many articles on both coconut charcoal and coconut healing oil, since what I found are articles from sellers here and abroad, and some in Sri Lanka specifically. But these 2 articles are very important articles, since main article Coconut and Coconut oil do not deal with these charcoals and healing oil in depth. So, I want to re-create and re-write these 2 article in the light of my own country I want to create theses as:

a) Philippine coconut charcoal and b) Philippine coconut healing oil, we have the VCO and the traditional heat pressed ones.

If you have no objection, I will re-write and re-created them following your above-guidelines. Sincerely

--Florentino floro (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

May I re-write a CONSOLIDATED ARTICLE on "VIRGIN COCONUT AND HEALING OIL & COCONUT CHARCOAL
Reply: Thanks for your kindness. I admire your professionalism and interest in helping us users to edit properly in the light of global copyright laws. Sad to say, our Philippine copyright law was recently born and was copied from foreign laws. I know that WikiPedia is global. But, with all due respect, if I re-write these 2 coco articles globally, I will find problem with references which AGAIN would be commercial biased and not verifiable. So, may I ask your KINDNESS, to let me re-write these 2 re-directed articles limited to Philippines but I will retain its global outlook like including Sri Lanka and USA charcoal of the future. I admit that laziness was the root cause of my alleged copyright violations. In the following article I created which is one of the best worldwide due to the millions of Youtube views on this inmates thing, I lazily used more words from the links instead of using my own words, thus the article was NOT re-directed and deleted but it was re-written. Thriller (Cebu, Philippines Inmates' Video)  As of now I contributed so much of my time (10 hours a day for WikiPedia); I might not convince you to believe that here in the Philippines very very few judges and justices touch computer. Justice Callejo and Sandoval Gutierrez, whom I know, write court decisions using mannual typewriter and handwriting, respectively. I learned computer forcibly when I became world-famous since april 6, 2006. . I was almost banned here in the suckpoppet case, but I won the case, in view of my good faith and defense. As of today from just recently, this is my contribution: Number of edits: 1,855; If you review my contributions I worked hard to create articles which I think will benefit our nation and the world, the students and researchers: * Gregory S. Ong - Sandiganbayan Justice * Teresita De Castro - Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan * Antonio Z. Atienza, Jr. - Noted Philippine Jeweler * Thriller (Cebu, Philippines Inmates' Video)  * Butanding - Philippine Whale Shark * Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. - Philippine Supreme Court Justice * WikiPilipinas * March Tian Boedihardjo * The Joseph Estrada Verdict * Joey Marquez * Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data (Philippines) * Coconut Charcoal * Gamet: Philippine Black Gold and deleted (Rita Milla)

You will notice that even if, my articles created are almost all, concerning Philippines, still, they are notable, and the world can share what they did contribute to jewelry, rule of law etc. Yes, it seems they are Filipino articles, but WITH all due respect, they all have GLOBAL impact, great contributions to WikiPedia.

I admit that in coconut charcoal, a Filipino user did write deleted Kingsgrill his own charcoal factory for reasons of advertisement. But I have nothing to do with that. I am a healing judge, GIFTED, and I cannnot even sell my OIL since it is a gift. For which reason, I want the world globally to benefit from it not only from a medical or alternative medicine point of view but culturally, religiously, etc. Healing Oil And here Virgin Coconut Oil and heat-pressed coconut oil had cured so many people and the golden oil which CANNOT BE SOLD due to being a GIFT had been used here since ancient times. Give me a chance to RE-write them a) using my own words, b) using limited and verifiable resources c) and the images from WIKIPEDIA COMMONS to enhance this article, I want all my articles to be colorful etc. d) reliable sources - printed news, peer-reviewed academic journals, academic books on the subject, etc.

I want to learn I want to write articles which are landmark, notable and unique (like Butanding), so help me. But please do not expect me to support my article with 100% reliable links, but at the very least, I can submit thereat, NEUTRAL links which are verifiable and written by experts with Ph.D.'s on the subject. The mere fact that some claims on VCO had been challenged by soya oil does not make the same unverifiable, this is a grey area. I spent one whole week researching on these coconut healing oil and charcoal, so, I ask your KINDNESS to give me a chance.

In my experience in healing since 1999, Philippine heat-pressed coconut oil had cured many incurable but there is no link. WHY? I wrote our DOST and Coconut Authority, I was told that if they will allow the ancient traditional heat-pressed oil, VCO business will collapse. For humanitarian reasons, and GLOBAL benefits, allow me to write again this article:

Philippine Virgin and Healing Coconut Oil and Coconut Charcoal or titled Virgin and Healing Coconut Oil and Coconut Charcoal (Philipines) or Virgin Coconut Oil, Healing Oil and Coconut Charcoal (Philipines)

Parenthetically, the title may be changed and metamorphosedly developed like this: Manila Peninsula rebellion from mutiny etc. If you have no objection, I will spend about 10 hours on this CONSOLIDATED article, and I will re-create them.

Sincerely, --Florentino floro (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good morning sir, I wrote this article, Philippine Virgin Coconut and Heat-Pressed Healing Oils and I tried my best to provide the most neutral links and references, like our Government news, sites, neutral and not commercial links LINE BY LINE paragraph by paragraph and I uploaded WikiPedia Commons images. In case there is need to amend any section thereof please let me know, so that I can correct the same. Thanks for your kind attention. Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Appeal
Good morning sir, I replied on my talk page and explained and I rested my case on this oil. But I appeal to your KINDNESS, that if it is WIKI POSSIBLE to reinstate the article by your GOOD amendment and editing of the same instead of deleting, then, thanks, if not, then, it is sad to say the the good article would lost its value to be shared by many VCO lovers. Regards. P.S. If only you have time, please amend it and reinstate the article.

Sincerely,

--Florentino floro (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Two more Colura references
I discovered that I did have a copy of Schuster's "Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae, I. Annotated Keys to the Genera..." Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 26: 185-309. Colura (in Australia and New Zealand) is discussed on p.244 (item #103). The only species in New Zealand is C. saccophylla, found only once on the North Island, but "quite frequent" on parts of the South Island. He mentions that Jovet-Ast reports two additional species from Australia: C. bisvoluta and C. australiensis. In the references, he lists: S. Jovet-Ast (1953-54) "Le genre Colura". ''Rev. Bryol. et Lichén.'' 22: 206-312; 23:1-22, figs. 1-70, maps 1-7. It sounds like this might be a comprehensive treatment of the genus up to that date. However, it will be in French. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice Work!
Just wanted to say Nice Work on the Utricularia inflata article! :) Its our first decent article of the genus and I'm well familiar with the kind of work that goes into producing it. Thanks and Merry Christmas! --NoahElhardt (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hieracium, quotes, 3RR rule, etc
When I talked about both of you keeping in mind 3RR I wasn't saying you had violated 3RR, just that you were getting close especially on Hieracium laevigatum where you removed the quote, re-removed it, and removed it a third time. Can't remember whether there were any others I saw with that many reverts. Anyway, you are right to take things to talk pages and let's hope that we get a response from CarolSpears (I have in mind giving her a chance to read what is there before adding a lot more which is why I'm posting this here rather than on User_talk:CarolSpears). She has made many valuable contributions, so it would be a shame to get things all clogged up based on some fairly minor points. Kingdon (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (responding to your comment on my talk page; feel free to respond here if you want as I'll watchlist it at least for the immediate future) Well, WP:OWN plus a tendency to take things personally, go off on tangents rather than addressing questions directly, get frustrated (right now, taking the form of hostility towards WP:PLANTS), etc. I think I need to cool off at the moment but I'm not feeling quite as eager to encourage her to edit as before.  Meanwhile, Hieracium caespitosum needs another revert (but you and I have each reverted it recently).  I'm torn between (a) wanting to avoid escalation and figuring these things generally blow over, for example by means of the "owner" or "warrior" moving on to a different "property" or "battle" and (b) wanting to avoid a situation where zillions of pages all need cleanup down the road because interpersonal conflicts were ignored. I suppose there's nothing wrong with trying (c) apologize for the part of this you did wrong and see if that changes the dynamic. Kingdon (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Egads indeed. I'm torn as well. EncycloPetey has taken notice, too, and left a message for another editor that said he'd take a look at it. So we've got a bunch of eyes looking it over. I did follow the route of (c) and hope Carol will reply. All this can be overwhelming and it's a busy time of year, so I'm just waiting for a calm and clear reply. Perhaps uninvolved parties like Petey and Ryan Postlethwaite might have a better perspective. I took a break from the usual plant material to dig up some info on a local "backyard history" item I had been meaning to write an article about (Walhonding Canal) with plans to expand it further. I found that to be a nice escape from it all as it helped me too cool off and forget about all else for a moment. Anyway, I plan on sticking to "wait and see" and if anything more disruptive comes about, go through the proper channels. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We've done what we can in terms of trying to start a discussion. She can go down that road or go down the other and get blocked (at least one admin has noticed).  Getting a constructive response seems unlikely, but I generally prefer to act as if it is possible even though sometimes it sort of feels like going through motions on the way to blocks, reverts, etc. Kingdon (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe we have. She's also started doing the same routine over at Clementine. We actually have, I believe, four or five admins involved here. One over at Clementine, 'Petey, myself, Hesperian, and the editor Petey asked to take a look at the situation, Ryan Postlethwaite. We don't have a lack of admins, here ;-) --Rkitko (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellence in leadership
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I was juggling some (a very very few) real life things and I also started to make a big mess of things at the commons and unmessing it was somewhat productive and I did not want to interrupt that until it was completed.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to express opinions and tell to me all of the various reasons that you were changing articles that I was writing (while I was writing them) on my talk page. I am actually disappointed to see that some discussion has begun since I figured that this was an indication of what it was like to get that whatever those things are from the Plant Project.

Within in the next couple of days, I intend to communicate (lead, if you will) in the same fashion and I will be very interested to see how it is that I should have responded from your response.

Much of this is not my personal style, but neither is wikipedia -- so it should be interesting.

You have messages used to be kind of neat -- like that I might learn something. I also found some of the tags that were applied to be funny and in a weird way, encouraging -- like the tag that I got on a word free but nicely outline article that said that it did not contain enough information. It was sick and funny because I needed sleep and I enjoyed it for the polite sarcasm. Those days seem to be over and the You have messages notification is ... is ... well, you tell me.

So, again, thank you and I will be giving it a try soon enough. And let you know on your talk page. -- Carol 12:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)