User talk:Sminthopsis84/Archive 8

Cucurbita
I was just looking at the latest edit to Cucurbita and found something that may need fixing. In the first paragraph of the lead, it mentions "(bottle-)gourd", just like that. However, in my screen view, the word broke between the hyphen and the close-parenthesis, so it looks like:


 * (bottle-


 * )gourd.

I don't know if there is anything that can be done to ensure that the word doesn't break there. Are the parentheses around "bottle-" really necessary?

Also, can you take a look at this paragraph in Edit Mode? There is a note to editors at "squash" that I don't understand.

Finally, I may be wrong, but it looks like cucumbers are in this family, and, if so, shouldn't there be at least one picture of a cucumber or two in the article? CorinneSD (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at those edits, which are quite hard to follow. I can't think what could be done about that hyphenation problem on a narrow screen. I think I've made sense of the comment about squash, but I think that should mean that the formatting should be bold rather than italics, but some other editors care so strongly about that sort of thing that I won't touch it. Cucumbers are in the same family, Cucurbitaceae, but a different genus, Cucumis, with melons (that always seems strange to me, the textures being so different). Did you see the list of fruit that ripen after picking? I learned only recently that honeydew melons are worth buying, you don't have to pick them ripe from the vine, but really have no personal information about watermelon not ripening after harvest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I just looked at those lists of fruit that ripens after picking and fruit that does not ripen after picking, and I wondered why "apple" was not on either list. Re the formatting, before I go looking for technical help, are you saying that the way it is written, with "bottle-" in parentheses, is all right? An alternative would be to call it bottlegourd or bottle-gourd and add (sometimes just "gourd"), or something like that. CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be hard to source the information about individual fruit types. I've looked in plant physiology text books and found very little, just one or two examples of climacteric and non-climacteric fruit. Rewriting the gourd bit sounds fine; I meant that I couldn't see a way to fix it, but I have now discovered how to make a non-breaking hyphen if that helps: replace the hyphen with  Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Shall I change "(bottle-)gourd" to "bottle-gourd" and use the no break hyphen, or should it be bottlegourd? CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd vote for bottle-gourd, but I come from a culture that believes that hyphens are useful, and some other people apparently believe them to be mere irritants (hence the "copyeditors" who change pre-dates to predates, changing a statement about time to one about eating). Presumably the original text was trying to say that some people call them gourds and some people call them bottle-gourds, so I'd expect that there might be protests if it were changed to just bottle-gourds. I don't know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I like hyphens, too, except for a few words that have been considered one word for quite a while. I think the hyphen aids in comprehension as one is reading, and a missing hyphen often creates a bit of unnecessary confusion for the reader. I asked on the technical page about the hyphen in "(bottle-)gourd" and was given a template, so I added it. Maybe I told you this already. I'd love to know what prompted your campaign to take a stand and withhold your editing labor on Mondays. CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That template is good to know about.
 * An unknown number of people are taking Mondays off as a combination protest and coping mechanism. There is some discussion here. The malaise to which it is a response affects other wikiprojects, not just this one. We need some serious study of what editor-retention efforts might work, and I believe that needs to be a central effort from WMF and would cost actual money. The internal efforts, i.e., those done by unpaid people like us, (e.g., this) don't work. Inadequate training or vetting of admins is a serious problem. There seems to be no way to counter some aggressively ignorant people who take up ownership of articles and even entire wikiprojects or processes. The Featured Article process is supposed to be a way to counter the loss of expert editors, but I see it as the opposite because it provides a stage for the aggressively ignorant to perform on. It's nice to see the new Time Card component of the Edit Count tool, which would start to show a Monday gap. I'm still considering what to do about vandalism and idiocy that occur on a Monday, because rapidly fixing all that on Tuesday would be quite painful. If the vandals and POV pushers get wind of this protest they might concentrate their activities on Monday … It would be so nice if all editing were locked out one day per week, a day of rest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

roses
Hello Sminthopsis84, as you write that you understand some German, I'd like to ask if you could help me by checking a small German-English vocabulary I made for rose terms (e.g. the double - gefüllt translation ;->). The link would be here. --Anna reg (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've put some comments in another column of the table, so you should be able to revert easily to remove them. The main rose book I have strangely doesn't define those terms, though it has a glossary with terms like pinnatifid and triploid. There's a quite good list of English terms here. In some of the suggestions a hyphen can be used or not, but I've put what I think is the most common spelling. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot - as I use helpmefind a lot for the commons galleries, I'm recognise most of the terms, but don't know them well enough to remember them when I have to translate from German to English (and the literature I can easily get my hands on is entirely in German). And I didn't know about the list - that could really be useful - I'll definitely have a look at it! --Anna reg (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crataegus
I wondered if you care to attempt to answer the question posed in a note to editors in 2009 in Crataegus. CorinneSD (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have never seen that statement in print, and have doubts about its accuracy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Crataegus#Landscaping is quite accurate - except for the water landscaping - but my experience is they do well beside water, yes, But nothing well documented - as far as I know. Was this the question? Hafspajen (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you both read the right statement. The statement is:


 * "Hawthorns are among the trees most recommended for water conservation landscapes."


 * The note to editors is:


 * "Citation needed reason = in what part of the world? Not in dry parts of the US, where they grow only near water."


 * I think there are two issues here. 1) Is the statement accurate and sourced properly? and 2) The question left there in May 2009. Perhaps the editor was thrown off by the phrase "water conservation landscapes". I'm not sure what that means, either. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I had assumed that a "water conservation landscape" was one that required little added water; perhaps it was intended to mean planting around the edge of a dam. It seems strange to me in either case, and I'd vote for removing it. Five years seems long enough to wait for a citation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Camellia
I've been reading the article on Camellia. I had no idea before I read this article that it was the tea plant. I have a few questions:

1) In the first paragraph of the lead is the following sentence:


 * "The genus was named by Linnaeus after the Jesuit botanist Georg Joseph Kamel, who worked in the Philippines, though he never described a camellia."


 * The pronoun "he" in "though he never described a camellia" is, I would guess, Georg Joseph Kamel, but I think it is slightly ambiguous (it could possibly refer to Linnaeus). If it is, in fact, Kamel, I suggest revising the sentence so that it is clearer:


 * "The genus was named by Linnaeus after the Jesuit botanist Georg Joseph Kamel, who worked in the Philippines but never described a camellia."


 * What do you think?

2) The last sentence in Camellia reads:


 * "Camellia oil pressed from seeds of C. japonica, also called tsubaki oil or tsubaki-abura (椿油) in Japanese, has been traditionally used in Japan for hair care."


 * I think the word "also" is not needed here. "C. japonica" is not a Japanese word. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Those changes both sound good. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Biological classification
I agree that this is very tricky to word (as we've found before with most articles about taxonomic topics). However, I think your edit went too far in rewording "used to group and categorize organisms into hierarchically ranked groups from domain and kingdom down to genus and species" into "used to group and categorize organisms into groups such as genus or species." The point that was lost was that classification involves hierarchies; clade-based systems are just as hierarchical as rank-based ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we could restore the 'hierarchical' at least, even if there are exceptions. Overwhelmingly, the post-Linnaean scheme is a hierarchy. If we don't think that, the article needs rewriting! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I should have also mentioned when I restored that paragraph that the previous version was not good (edit summaries are a bit on the small side sometimes). Actually, as Peter says, I'm also not sure that there are exceptions, are there? In my experience, nothotaxa are placed into a classification through polytomies, e.g., Crataegus nothosection Cragaeguineae has the hybrids between sections Crataegus and Sanguineae, but it is the same rank as the parental sections. From what I've seen of Phylocode, I think that would be no different. If people really want to talk about network relationships they use discordant cladograms, I think, not classifications, e.g. one from an organelle genome (chloroplast or mitochondrion) and one from nuclear or morphological data. I do think that the whole article needs a lot of careful polishing with accompanying careful discussion, but it and related articles such as Species have been subject to, and probably always will be subject to, some ill-informed changes that make it quite difficult. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
WIKILOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have WIKILOVE!!!!!!!! YIPPIEE! Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It is nice to have it here, and very nice of you to use it! Over in the grumpy project there's been a bit of progress towards maybe being able to translate the system messages, which would be a necessary foundation for getting wikilove working there. The grumpies probably would never agree to ask for wikilove, but being able to translate messages for that project using translatewiki.net might have other benefits, perhaps. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, knew I am [going to be reverted]... Not humorous enoug? Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably too humorous. I responded on the talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it was rather funny. Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some other people seem to have been born without a funny bone. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A cup of High tea for you!

 * Wow. Have some of it yourself, it looks delicious. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Violet
Hi S, re your edit summary and previous edits no piping is allowed (apart from style) for links at the start of an entry per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox ; talk 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit I was combatting destroyed the structure for readers over this minor point. Another editor has found what I hope is a solution to this fracas, without piping, so the style is inferior. That person's attempt to improve the style by using piping was also reverted. What ever happened to the notion that WP:MOS is a guideline rather than something that must be obeyed, or what of WP:BOLD, for that matter? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Something of interest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Acacia_pycnantha .. Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice. Nice parrots too. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What happened to Corinne??? It's now 5 days ago she edited... Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. She has taken wikibreaks before. I was going to ask when I have finished the task on Flax that she asked me to do. You could email her … Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not me. I promised not to enable e-mail to wikipedia on our computers. Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do that then (I love my email filters). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything back? Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back CorinneSD! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * THERE SHE IS. And already discovered a couple of things too.. Hafspajen (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm glad to be back, but I don't know how long my computer will hold out. I was just looking at the main page for commons and in the menu at the right where it says "Content" and then lists topics such as "Nature", under "Nature" it says "Plantae". Why can't it just say "Plants", similar to "Fossils"? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That page can only be edited by admins, and I don't know how the multi-lingual features work in Commons. No fungi, either, or various other groups like slime-moulds, bacteria, minerals … Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Commons makes a distinction between commons:Category:Plantae, which is the top of the taxonomic hierarchy for the plant kingdom, and commons:Category:Plants, which is for things related to plants. Here we don't, which is why you get categories like Category:Palms which has what I find to be a strange mixture of taxon-related articles and others. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What a peculiar set of things are listed in commons:Category:Plants, I hadn't seen that before. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But in addition to that, don't you think just the word "Plants" would be more informative for the average reader than "Plantae"? CorinneSD (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, do, but then what would you call commons:Category:Plants? Part of the problem with categories is that you can't have redirects (see WP:CATRED) so you can't provide alternative more meaningful names in addition to "disambiguated" ones. Anyway, this would be a matter for the admins at Commons. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Walnut
Do you agree with the latest edit to Walnut? CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a good start. What a hodge-podge of poor-quality inappropriate citations. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyssopus officinalis 2
Can you look at the latest edit to Hyssopus officinalis? I'll leave judging the edit itself up to you, but in the middle of the sentence it says "to purify this type of food", and, since the only food that was mentioned was bread, what is the need for "this type of food"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It would require a biblical scholar with the right specialty or reading the work of Porphyry (philosopher) to understand that, I think. I also wonder about the purgative effects mentioned, whether that is the medical sense of purgative, or to do with religious purifying. I read enough to see the hyssop was used to anoint various things for purifying them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, I've done what I can there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Beetroot


Perhaps you could take a look at the latest edits to Beetroot just to check their accuracy. Besides that, I was wondering what you thought of the double image at the beginning of the article. It's the only article I've seen with that type of image at the beginning of an article. If one is chosen for the beginning, I would choose the one of the beets with their stalks and leaves. Perhaps the cross section could be placed a little later in the article. Just a thought. CorinneSD (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the two photos look better stacked like that, but I think they should be separated. I would like to see the first picture, the one with the stems and leaves, a little larger (so that the roots are clearly visible) and the one with the cross section a little smaller. If you agree, you can go ahead and change them, or I will try to work on it (using the instructions I've read in the WP picture tutorial). Also, I think the picture of the glass of beet juice lower down in the article should be a little smaller and the picture of the pickled beets just slightly larger. If you're too busy, I'd be glad to work on this. If I have problems, I would ask . But I would be glad if you would do it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that all sounds good. I think I should stop working on the article for a while, both because I have other things to do and because someone might feel that what I've done so far is too drastic, if it reverts their edits. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Who did that. Hafspajen (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hafs, if you agree with me, would you make the changes in the images? Then I can see how you did it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Hafs: I don't mean anyone in particular, but in the past I've had people suddenly accuse me of violating WP:3RR because I made 3 unrelated edits within 24 hours on the same page, clearly not understanding what "revert" means. (The facts that some admins can't count to 3 or don't know what "more than 3" means are other issues that I've seen.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Who did that? Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Shh, admins. But actually, now that I check, Smile.png a certain person retired at the end of 2013, and another aggressive individual (an administrator hopeful) has made very few edits in the last month. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. Like beetroot?Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The First Men in the Moon…
 * Hmm. As a professional naturalist, I had always thought that it was made of green cheese. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my update to Talk:Beetroot. Thanks. n2xjk (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Almond COI edit
Hi, I'm writing to ask if you could take a look at a COI request I've posted to the Talk page for the Almond article. I noticed you have a history of working on the article and I'd appreciate it if you could consider a fact correction I've suggested. I'd be very grateful for any feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I wonder how those things happen. The citation made no such statement; it's as if a wikipedian saw that there was some mention of water shortages and concluded that it must be a new phenomenon affecting the almond crop; perhaps they read only one or two words. It makes one wonder if people or bots are writing this encyclopedia. Anyway, I've made the changes. I decided not to use one of your suggested sources because it was rather flamboyantly pro-almond. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

OLPC in Afghanistan
Hi, thx for helping with editing. Not sure how to most efficiently reply. Do I do that here or between the lines at my page where you left the comment ... but then how would you ever find out? As references I posted 1. the link to the youtube video where you have the olpc afghanistan responsable being interviewed. She's mentions 5.000 there. 2. the olpc Afghanistan pages on the wiki.laptop.org: that's where we - the olpc community gather and document our advances. You don't get an access just like that and if you'd dare to mess with deployment numbers or factual data, you'd be kicked out. Hope that's enough? --SvenAERTS (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

?


Hafspajen has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

What is Corinne saying? Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Computer problems, I think. By the way, the chocolate-beetroot brownies turned out very beautiful to look at, perfect texture, elegant colour … unfortunate beetrootish aroma. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)



WUUH, HOW CONFUSING. I had perfectly acceptable carrot cakes - were very nice. At Hermans Lilla Gröna. NiceHafspajen (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been there! Didn't have carrot cake. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you BEEN THERE+ When? Hafspajen (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * July 2013. Perhaps they should have a sign on the door "Warning, Wikipedians might be within" (however you say that in Swedish). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha. Were you on vacation? Hafspajen (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Pure vacation. Went, of course, to look at botanical gardens, Linné's in Upsala and the Bergianska. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I worked at Haga a while. And studied two years in Uppppsala ... lucky me they didn't throw me in the river. Hafspajen (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I liked Haga. I took a photo of swans with their babies there that people who've seen it say is so cute they would never look at such a picture, it just looks like a mass-produced sort of thing. I guess they are saying trashy. Yes, that river looks hard to climb out of. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you start the university is a tradition to throw a couple of the new students in the river. Hafspajen (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. Here it's just the engineers, and they dye one another purple. Other people try to stay away from campus for the first week of the year because they are very noisy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * mmm, like Lantmästare in Alnarp. Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilove!
Now you are of course not allowed to vote on it, but hey, it is something, growing the very first geranium... only a botanist would appreciate that. Hafspajen (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely accurate painting; the plant looks a bit water-deprived. We never see cultivated plants like that any more with such narrow petals. It's easy to imagine that cuttings from that plant must have been distributed at the maximum rate a plant could produce. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How very nice to hear YOUR OPPINION on the topic. Att the nomination it developed into a sexy thing .. was starting casting anxious glaces on geraniums if they are going to make me proposals ... Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. A child I know calls them geranipongs, using the etymology listed as #2 in wiktionary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you by the way take a look at Crisco's talk the Unidentified flower section and see if you can help identifying them --.oh thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Identify species, cultivar.
Hafspajen (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC), Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC) It is high enough. And thin enough, the petals. Lilium regale can't be because those are pinkish, not yellow - but then it can be those too... or Lilium candidum or Lilium auratum. Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The golden stripes down the middle of the tepals indicate L. auratum, and the way they curve is not the same as L. speciosum or L. regale (which is more trumpet-shaped, a less open flower). I think Sargent has captured the curvature perfectly. Different varieties of that species have different amounts of red, this one with red spots and red anthers. It's not Cardiocrinum giganteum. An old book I have (Consider the Lilies by William Emerson Marshall, 1927), calls that type of marking L. auratum var. auratum, "The old type white with gold bands and spotted maroon", in contrast to var. whittei with no spots and broad yellow bands, var. pictum with crimson spots and crimson-tips (as well as the yellow bands), var. platyphyllum with yellow bands and spots, and var. rubro-vittatum with red bands and spots. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It's definitly not - not Cardiocrinum giganteum, I planted some and it grew almost to 1.80 meter - (six feet) - that is a giant blasted big plant. Hafspajen (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Our article Cardiocrinum giganteum is pretty crappy on it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I imagine you can find some inspiration in this gurgel translation spiced with some mystical statments about Blühreife... Hafspajen (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'German article: From a seed grow Cardiocrinum typologies over five years in an increasingly dense rosette of large, heart-shaped, pure green leaves with a gloss finish. From the Blühreife they develop a high, unbranched flower stem. With the onset of flowering in early June hanging on flower stalk four to twenty pure white, up to 20 cm long, tubular trumpet-shaped flowers that smell clearly and comfortably. The flowers can have a purple stripe at the bottom. In addition to the "standard" generative propagation through pollination and seed multiply Cardiocrinum typologies vegetatively. The plants die after seed maturity, but make it up to ten daughter bulbs, gain according to size in three to five years again Blühreife. All species of the genus Cardiocrinum are in Asia home. They prefer locations in the penumbra as well as loose and well fertilized, always slightly moist peat based soil. The Himalayan giant lily ( Cardiocrinum giganteum ) is sometimes found as plant rarity on the market. From lilies to her breeders will often also a "place of honor" awarded among the lilies. Another use for Cardiocrinum typologies is not known.
 * That translation's funny, as is that picture at Cardiocrinum giganteum of possibly the smallest plant to ever flower. My neighbour has it. It blooms every year, didn't take five years to make the Blühreife. We also need an article on Jardin Jungle Karlostachys translated (and trimmed) from the French wikipedia but I've sworn not to create new pages until they stop putting people's names on this list when they have asked not to be on such lists . Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The bush is hard to guess. It's in California, so Ceanothus seems likely, perhaps nearing the end of blooming. I think I've seen Rosemary in just such a rich blue too. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes a real tiny specimen in the article ... Well, if they plant it between two rocks, won't get bigger... Shall I or shall you - change that picture? Hafspajen (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess was also Ceanothus, but are they so small? Hafspajen (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says of Ceanothus parvifolius "growing to a maximum height of just over a meter, forming a wide bush". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, it is. But wich is the one that climbes then? Hafspajen (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Herb garden seat - geograph.org.uk - 544015.jpg
 * They don't grow here at all. Perhaps Ceanothus arboreus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, very clever of you. No, we don't grow it either, of course - we have about the same climate, that is why I was unsure... It's at Sissinghurst Castle Garden in the garden, on a wall. Presumably a south wall. Hafspajen (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My gurgel translate will not go his thing at the Frech wiki. It is stucked - or I was editing it too much, so now it thinks I am French. Can you provide me with a gurgel translation in User:Hafspajen/Jardin_Jungle_Karlostachys whatever? The rest I can manage if you do the copyed later. Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's at User:Hafspajen/Jardin_Jungle_Karlostachys. I ungurgeled it slightly, e.g., by changing hectare back from acre, but it is still quite a bizarre translation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! I will gaze on it soon, just have to be wintery for a while - promised. Do you or do you not take this giant lily and change it to your faithful weeded article? Hafspajen (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The blue-flowered shrub: most Ceanothus are difficult to clip to a nice rounded shape in my experience, and the branch structure of prostrate cultivars tends to be more horizontal than in the pic, however this cultivar (C. griseus 'Yankee Point') looks quite similar, if not quite as neat. It's a bit odd though, if it is a Ceanothus, that the photographer doesn't recognise something as common as that in California...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty thing; I wish it would grow here. Would wikipedia fund one of us, do you suppose, to go there and take a photo of the leaves? I was imagining tiny leaves, but that is probably something that happens when the picture isn't well focused. To the right of the entryway it looks as if the same species might be there, but so brutally clipped that most of it is hardly blooming at all. Sminthopsis84 (talk)

These are part of a very wild forest environment Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Some of these expressions like of sages pushing tuft (Clumping) - makes me feel weird. What is that. Hafspajen (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * :-) Like some kind of herbal soup with lumps in it. So I worked on that a bit. "Beech" is a guess for hêtres, are they orange in Europe? I wondered about Carpinus, but the Hêtre page doesn't list that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Lemon guava
I've always thought of lemon guava as referring to Psidium littorale, and most of the Google results for "lemon guava" seem to agree with this usage. Does "yellow guava" get used much for P. guajava in places where it is not the "common" guava? Plantdrew (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, my personal experience is really no guide, as it is that of a child growing up (as an adult I don't encounter them at all). I was reacting to the name "common guava" for Psidium guajava, when in my experience it is a fruit imported from warmer climates that few people would learn to eat who know guavas as the ornamental shrub with fruit that taste like toothpaste and are only useful for making jelly (Acca sellowiana). The name Yellow Guava is something that I only found on GRIN. When people started marketing selected feijoa cultivars as a wonderful new crop, I think it was hard to convince southern Australians to try them ("yechh, it's just a pineapple guava!"). I might have heard Apple Guava, but they look like lemons and not like apples so ... It seems to me now that Lemon Guava filled a role as a clear contrast to Pineapple Guava, but perhaps I mis-remember. "True guava" is probably the most common description that I've heard for Psidium guajava. Psidium cattleyanum is a nasty weed] in Australia, so I doubt that yellow-fruited forms of it are noticed or given names. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Fylbecatulous. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Hafspajen/Jardin Jungle Karlostachys, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 12:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this message goes out automatically when I use page curation. I checked it as unreviewed and hid categories just until it goes live into article space. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hello, this is Fylbecatulous. Fylbecatulous, this is Sminthopsis84. Hafspajen (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Full_Smiley.png ... Fylbecatulous talk 13:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Hello. Thank you for that. I should have used that little colon at the start of the categories, forgot ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply can't figure out if the exotic plants are indoors, outdoors, how many where - how many of them are endemic and how many imported. Hafspajen (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have an error in the English version, the French doesn't say that it is tropical. Brassaiopsis mitis is from Bhutan, so that would fit well with Rhododendron. This seems to be a jungle garden with cool-climate plants from near the equator. The Eucalyptus are the kind called "snow gum" because they grow on mountains that have snow. So I think these are growing outside where the web site says the temperature gets down to -18C. No information on how many species are introduced; I guess that would change as they get interested in new ones. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Exotic is maybe not the right word then -or? And I was studying pictures and there is some kind of conservatory, I saw the glass walls. Wish we had some English sources, the only one keeps comming is just French things like this. and thisHafspajen (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

maybe knows? Hafspajen (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, found 1 English Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that English site is wrong when it says it is tropical. Plants from equatorial regions seems appropriate, but a clumsy way to say it that could be more neatly covered by "exotic plants". So we need to get five people together and pay the 50 euros and investigate this thoroughly. I suppose you could try asking user:Karlostachys. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Paley is closest, he just have to take the train to Dover, pice of cake -and the boat over to Normandie. Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A casual look suggests the plants contained in the garden are chosen more according to their 'jungly' appearance, rather than a specific provenance, so I'd agree that "tropical" isn't a good description. Maybe "jungle-style planting"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, while I was working on the "philosophy" section, I also took out the use of the word "tropical" in the first paragraph. The lede now mentions 'jungle park, ' botanical garden' and 'wild forest environment'. We can probably work in the words  "jungle-style planting" in the 'plant species' section, if still needed.  Fylbecatulous talk</b> 03:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , the conservatory with glass walls you are seeing in the pictures most likely is the greenhouse. One exists. It is mentioned in the source I used in the philisophy section. The source I was working from said the greenhouse was bought to encourage more different plants. And he sells some. Perhaps you can add that to the 'species' section. ツ <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 03:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion
Please don't revert valid editing as you did on sympatry because reverting drives away editors, and Wikipedia has been losing editors because of a hostile editing environment, inlcuding reversion. I would further note that you reverted edits valid per WP:MOS, which was referenced in the edit comment ("Intro edit per MOS:LEAD"), and did so without providing a valid and informative explanation per WP:REVEXP, as "the previous version was better" does not even attempt to explain the rationale for negating another editor's contribution. I would suggest that you instead edit only those parts that you find merit editing, and support those edits with at least as much detail in reference to WP:MOS as was provided in the initial edit comment. ENeville (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, so you want to drive me out of wikipedia, you want to call it "symapatry", and you think it is better to say "In biology, symapatry is when two species or populations exist in the same geographic area" than "In biology, two species or populations are considered sympatric when they exist in the same geographic area". Terrific. Illiteracy rules. There's symapatry whenever there are two species in an area, rather than it is only those species that are sympatric. I've been thinking about leaving wikipedia for a long time because of this illiteracy phenomenon, and you have very nearly convinced me. Thank you for trying so politely to help me make up my mind. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who, me? I love you Sminthopsis! Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was to the other guy. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Love you too Hafs. Thank you for that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:ENeville You know, it would not hurt you, and would be more respectful, to ask Sminthopsis84 for further explanation as to why s/he considered the original version to be better instead of demanding s/he provide a more detailed edit summary or limit his/her editing. Then, you might learn something new. If you still disagreed, you could explain your point of view. That's a discussion. I'm not a scientist, but I can say that "X is when..." is not the best wording for a definition. CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:ENeville: If I understand you correctly, you felt that Sminthopsis84 did not provide a sufficiently detailed edit summary when s/he reverted your edit. S/He had written: "The previous version was better." It is true that that edit summary does not provide specific details. However, that does not mean that Sminthopsis84 did not have good reasons or that you couldn't ask for those reasons. One of the things editors are told when beginning to edit on WP is to be bold -- "Go for it!" See WP:BOLD. You followed that dictum when you made your edit. That was fine. However, the policy also says, in the second paragraph at WP:BOLD, not to become upset if one's edits are reverted:


 * "Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted....Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war [italics mine]."

So, if you find that the edit summary accompanying a revert of your edit insufficient, begin a discussion either on the article's talk page or on your or the other editor's talk page. Say, "I see you have reverted my edit at [link to article] with an edit summary saying ".....". I still don't understand why you undid my edit, and I'd like to know your reasons. Would you mind explaining your reasons for me?" (or something like that). The important thing is not to take it personally. If you look at your original comment, above, you will see that it begins, "Please don't revert valid editing as you did on...". That's rather peremptory -- akin to an order or instruction to Sminthopsis84. Perhaps that was the reason for Sminthopsis84's slightly heated response. Sminthopsis84 did nothing wrong. Did you take the time to read his/her user page? If you had, you would have seen that Sminthopsis84 is a "systematic botanist"; that is, a professional botanist. This editor deserves more respect from you. Read the first few paragraphs of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It says just what I told you, above. 1) BE BOLD. You did that. 2) If someone reverts your edit, do not get upset (no matter what the edit summary says or does not say). 3) Discuss. Start a discussion. Stay calm. Ask questions. Be persuasive but at the same time be open-minded. When you do this, sometimes you will be successful at persuading other editors, sometimes not. You may reach a compromise. You may learn something new, too. Happy editing! CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you, how nice. That was an amazing thing, I nominate a page for deletion and then a team gets to work to finally discover that there are facts that resemble what the page was saying in its incomprehensible way. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Ooh, strawberries with red interior. When I was in Sweden in June I made sure to eat a lot of strawberries. Here they tend to be hard, with white interior, and I've become used to ignoring them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Very noisy dormouses. What's ocurring!!!!!!! Your hard, with white interior strawberries ... ah, what pain. Our belowed strawberries, the pride of the Northern counrtries... are good indeed. I have to go and cry a little. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but it's not so bad really. Dormice eat hazelnuts, so a hard white strawberry is something they don't have too much difficulty with, if they are hungry enough. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What is not so bad. Hafspajen (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cosy! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh
Thanks for the finetooth comb. I've been having a good time figuring out what's going on in this amazing delta. I'm happy that you find it interesting too and are working to improve the articles. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cornus (genus)
If you have time, would you review the latest edits by an IP editor to Cornus (genus)? CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a good tag; the problem text has been entirely removed by another editor now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630518215 your edit] to Madaripur District may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * * Habibunnesa Chowdhurani: Zamindar Jalalpur Porgona. Husband: Golam Hyder Chowdhury
 * Ah yes, notability is a minor concern compared to the balancing of brackets. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
–  nafSadh did say 15:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help editing references
I want to make a spelling correction in a list of references in Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, but I am unable to access the references. I asked User:Gandydancer who said I should click on "Edit source" at the top of the article and scroll all the way down. Well, I don't have "Edit source" at the top of any page. I only have "Edit". When I click on "Edit" and scroll all the way down the page, I don't see the numbered list of references/sources. It is around #249. Starts "Nishiura, Chowell". Said "Eropian Centre for Research". Now says "Europian Centre for Research". One more edit and it will be correct -- European. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I don't have "Edit source" either, though I usually do. The reference is encoded and becomes formatted when the page is "rendered", so try editing again and search for Nishiura to see the complicated coding in all its glory. Someone else has already corrected the misspelling. (I have to rush off now to catch a plane.) ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't Myosotis me

 * I don't think I can help identify that. The list of species at The Plant List has changed greatly since the citation on the Forget-me-not page with a lot of new species names that haven't yet been resolved. I think it is premature to identify any of the species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thought so., do you ever get any pings?? Hafspajen (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * - Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I got both of these. Thank you. Maybe I should switch from using "ping" to "U" when I ping someone. I thought both worked equally well, but maybe not. CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was pinging like crazy . Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Barley
Could you look at the latest edit to Barley? An IP editor changed a BC date to a BP date, but if one adds 2,014 A.D. years plus the BC years, one can see that the BP number is way over that. I don't know what's correct. CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been fixed. CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. The IP editor put the information back in again. I undid it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed two red links in Barley. Can you do anything about them? CorinneSD (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed one. The other would seem to require a new page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Morus (plant)
What do you think of the latest edit to Morus (plant)? What stalk? Isn't the mulberry a tree that produces fruit? Is there a stalk somewhere? CorinneSD (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a little stalk on the fruit, but it doesn't have noticeable sap, so I think the IP editor is wrong. They also removed useful information about the sap. I've reverted. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

'''Hello Sminthopsis84: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!''' – NorthAmerica1000 05:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Culture of Dhaka
The section about culture in Dhaka had long been a mess. and another IP uses have been developing it. I posit, it is high time we fork the section to a full article. I created Culture of Bangladesh Culture of Dhaka. You are invited to add your good work there. –  nafSadh did say 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Making it into a new page sounds like a good idea. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lovely Halloween

 * What a very thoughtful combination, some gummy bears and a porky-pine who could helpfully store them, one per spine. Thank you! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Disobedience snacks. What hamster-dance? Hafspajen (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, naughty hamsters invade the mind sometimes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * HM, you have a lot in common with, he joke-blocked me for the nuki-nuki nuki -gummibear. Hafspajen (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so it could be amusing to be an admin ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me you would do the SAME!!! - Ugh. Could you please tell me what kind of plants this guy is growing? Hafspajen (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Power corrupts, as they say. Fortunately, I don't have it (yet, ha ha! That's a joke. I wouldn't want admin power.). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So typical - now I will make an article of it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those plants are difficult. On the left is Hydrangea, I'm sure. The one in the middle seems to have plantlets along the leaf edges. There are many cultivars of Kalanchoe daigremontiana, but I don't know of any that have such broad leaf bases and such upright growth (Kalanchoe marmorata is broader, but that's not it). I wonder if the artist has mentally blended two succulents. Perhaps the things on the edges are not baby plants but spines; perhaps it's one of the haworthias that have bumps on them, but I don't know of any with such an irregular pattern. The pot on the right is very puzzling. There are two very different types of leaves, some like peperomia, and some that might be in pairs on the long stems that seem to connect to those flower heads that are a bit like Trifolium arvense. I don't know what they are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, those artist's - some source say amarant??? HM. The middle. [http://www.wga.hu/html_m/r/rorbye/window.html doubt that. ]It is for - View from the Artist's Window. Hafspajen (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess the "unsprouted seed" is what looks like an empty pot. I see the protected cutting. So that person is saying that it doesn't really matter if the leaves on the Gomphrena are accurately painted, it is the symbolism that matters. There is something else in that pot, something like Philodendron brandtianum. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Does Philodendron brandtianum flowers with pink Allium flowers? Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the plants with leaves like that are juvenile, unable to flower, but they make good houseplants. The adult plant has huge plain green leaves and the flower spike has a dark green and purple spathe. I don't think it is Philodendron brandtianum, I was just trying to describe those tropical-looking leaves in the middle of the pot. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not as good as houseplants as outdoors - but I have no idea. Are you any good att rabbits? Quld you give your oppinion at a nominated rabbit - I don't know if it is a wild species - but it looks very much as a domestic rabbit to me Featured picture candidates/Black Rabbit ‎ Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think they are saying it is a domestic rabbit. It is cute, nice expression. Can there only be one featured picture per species? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not quite so, we have thee elephants for example. And I an the one saying it - But I think this is not the same as the picture pointed to, that is a wild rabbit. What do you think. Hafspajen (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the black one looks domesticated. Same species as the wild brown one, but born in a cage. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gardenia
The latest edit to Gardenia changed "south Asia" to "South Asia". Since "South Asia" is not a continent, I'm not sure it needs to be capitalized. Do you want to look at it? CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted. It probably needs more detail of the ranges of each species to guard against that sort of thing, but the text could then be rather unwieldy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamilaraay
I saw your "gift" of a bilby to Hafspajen, and I started to read the article on the animal. I was curious about the indigenous Aboriginal language source of the word bilby so clicked on the link to Yuwaalaraay. It took me to the article entitled Gamilaraay, which I've started to read. I thought the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article could be improved. It uses "is/was named after" three times. Can you think of a way to make the sentence more concise? I could do it, but wasn't sure whether it was important to distinguish between "is named after" and "was named after".

Also, even though "Yuwaalaraay" is given as a synonym in tiny print all the way at the bottom of the Gamilaraay article, don't you think it could also be given earlier in the article? I know this is not your field, but I thought you might find this of some interest. CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is not something I know nearly enough about. The article is poor on citations. I also wonder about the use of past tense, which is said to be problematic in some native cultures (one mustn't mention people who have died). If Yuwaalaraay is a synonym, it should be mentioned at the top, but a source would be needed. I don't see any mention of it in ethnologue.com. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I re-worded the sentence. What do you think? I used present perfect tense. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Hafs, but I can't help laughing. I'm currently feeling completely submerged, unable to deal with my watchlist, extraordinary scrutiny and precision indeed! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for laughing. I am not going to let anyone chase you away. Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dianthus barbatus
I just read the article Dianthus barbatus -- Sweet william -- and I have a few questions:

1) I know plant names are supposed to have only the first word capitalized, right? But "William" is a proper noun -- a first name. It looks silly in lower-case. Shouldn't it be capitalized?

2) I know the lead of an article is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, but I wonder in such a short article if it is necessary to give the details about the petals and colors in the lead when it is in Dianthus barbatus, also.

3) In the gallery at the bottom, I noticed that there are about four different images of "heart-attack" flower (not even explained in the article, unless I missed it somehow). Don't you think that's excessive? Some of them don't even seem particularly interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC) William it is. If not even Thompson and Morgan doesn't get it right than the world would collapse. Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is you mos - silicon valey ingenieur - decap-. Here discussion   silicon valley got ispired from the cat. Hafspajen (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The images look much better now; thanks for working on the article. I hope you don't mind that I changed the height of the images in the gallery from 200 px to 180 px. I was just trying to eliminate some of that gray border around each image. I also fixed a caption or two.
 * I'm curious -- why, in edit mode, do some of the images start "File" while others start "image"? What's the difference between those?


 * Can you think of a caption for the images that have no caption?


 * I'm glad you changed "sweet william" to "Sweet William". How did you find that year-old discussion? Amazing. I read it. (I don't see why "robin" has to be capitalized, though, unless it's in a title or heading. There's a difference between "robin" and "William" or even "Sweet William".) I also don't understand the reference to silicon valley, or "cat.". What are those? You didn't answer my question in point #2, above. CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, better not to tell. Sminthopsis84, can you think of a caption for the images that have no caption?Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that lead image is D. barbatus, I think it is D. chinensis. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Too bad, needs change. Hafspajen (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WHICH ONE SHALL WE HAVE?? Hafspajen (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think number 4 is the clearest. Numbers 1 and 5 should be good, but I think they could be confused with D. chinensis, and apparently there are hybrids. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the image. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Chard
You might be interested in the latest comment at Talk:Chard. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment made there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you please check the latest edit to Chard? Also read the edit summary.

CorinneSD (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that edit is fine. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lobelia
I just read the article on Lobelia. I wonder if you feel like fixing a citation -- see the bot-generated note to editors visible only in Edit Mode in Lobelia, and finding a citation for two "citation needed" tags in the article -- one in Lobelia and one in Lobelia. CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation needed about not enough having been done was sort-of extracted from the 2001 article, but it might be out of date now; I've removed it. For lobellicyonycin, I can't find that anywhere, even by guessing that the l shouldn't be doubled. I have no idea about that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hermodactyloides
Re-Croom Helm Book (which I have a copy hence my wiki articles!) Was published in 18 Mar 1982 - re http://www.amazon.co.uk/Growing-Irises-G-E-Cassidy/dp/0709907060 I have the paperback version though! :) Think from a Charity Shop ! DavidAnstiss (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazon and Google books and other sites seemed to be unanimous that it was published by Croom Helm, and I saw a statement that Christopher Helm founded Christopher Helm Books in 1986. Does your paperback copy have a later republication date with the later publisher? I was just taking out the location because it didn't seem to be necessary and might be wrong, given that the publisher name seemed to be wrong. Do you have the publisher's location on your copy? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Am currently in my local library using the wi-fi ! Will check tonight and reply tomorrow !DavidAnstiss (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cassidy notes

Published in 1982, reprinted in 1985, revised paperback edition 1987 Christopher Helm (Publishers) Ltd, Imperial House, 21-25 North Street, Bromley, Kent BR1 1SD ISBN 0-7470-0412-9 Published in North America by Timber Press 9999 SW Wiltshire Portland OR 97225 USA ISBN 0-88192-089-4 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and Kings Lynn. That is all the details inside the cover! DavidAnstiss (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Since the book was revised, perhaps the classification was changed, so it seems important to use the 1987 date. I'll rework the changes that I made yesterday to Iris pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Chittagonian is not Bengali
Hi, you removed Bengali from the list of influencing/related languages in your edit at Chakma people. But technically, Bengali is different from Chittagonian. Also the sentence semantically meant, Chittagonian is is closely related to Assamese and a member of Easter Indo-Aryan language family. Can you have a closer look into it. –  nafSadh did say 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted that edit because I thought it was poorly constructed and looked like the work of someone trying to impose Bengali hegemony on the Chakma people. It removed a link to Assamese language, the only link on the page to that language, replacing it with the phrase "Assamese and Bengali", which while true, suggests that those languages are a unitary and complete group, but there are around 15 more named languages that differ substantially from one another in the Indo-Aryan Eastern group. Historically there has been a shift towards Bengali from a Tibeto-Burman language, so I thought it unhelpful to say that the Chakma language is influenced by Chittagonian but closely related to Bengali. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph is poorly written and convey little info. Even the original Chakma language article is poorly written. –  nafSadh did say 04:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is certainly true. If you decide to drastically rewrite, I'd strongly suggest working very slowly, rather than replacing big pieces at one time. I've noticed that both Bangladesh and language articles seem to be particularly read by people who panic when they see something that they think is a deletion, so edit wars are likely to break out. Even a small rearrangement seems to set some people off. I don't know if you have worked much with WikiProject Languages; I haven't. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't. I study about linguistics sometimes. You are right about these articles that they often create panic. Specially, linguistics, ethnology, anthropology etc are not often exact science and academicians' views are often very biases. For example, most Indian scholars strongly refute the theory that Indo-Aryan migrated to the sub-continent from west.
 * Bengali linguistics scholars like Munir Chy strongly theorize that Chittagonian and Sylheti are not dialects of Bengali, rather are different language. But neither Chittagonians, nor Sylhetis would identify these as different language but as dialects of Bengali, and list Bengali as their primary language. Likewise, most Tibbeto-Burman languages in Chittagong Hills are very much influenced by local Indo-European language, Bengali. Language like Saotali and Manipuri should have some Deddic origin in them. If I recollect correctly, some scholars state that Chittagonian and Chakma language both influenced each other. Also Arakan's language had influence on them.
 * Although these language related articles are poorly written, and when I read them, I can identify many things are wrong, I do not have sources with me. Sadly, no active editors I see from Bangladesh is expert on these matters. Neither am I. My area of expertise is Computer Science, and articles about these are mostly well-written by better experts and often by professors.
 * Facts in many language and nation related articles might hurt some readers and people of South Asia are particularly very sensitive. I wish they were not. –  nafSadh did say 23:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. One of the reasons that I stay away from language articles, apart from not having enough time anyway, is that there are theories about the grammatical structure that I think are interesting, but people who haven't studied those prefer to think of languages as similar if they have borrowed a lot of words. It would be an uphill battle to bring scholarship to those subject areas that so many people care about and that are so sensitive (as we are finding with the calendars). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup! Enough on this. Enjoy a cup of hot chocolate. –  nafSadh did say 03:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Anise 2
I've just returned to WP after a week's break; have been quite busy. If you haven't yet seen them, could you review the latest edits to Anise? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't have an opinion on that; I'd defer to you on how that should be typeset. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Macrotis
I just looked at several sets of edits to Macrotis by an IP editor. While the new versions are not wrong, I'm not sure they are an improvement. They seem to simplify the language to the same boring words that one sees in many WP articles. Also, there is one change that I think does actually change the meaning and I'm not sure the new version is correct: "reasonably" to "somewhat". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, saying "somewhat" is disparaging. I've responded there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. I'll read what you've written. I just want to say that I think in this context "reasonably" means something like rather, or quite, which is greater than "somewhat"; that's what I meant by a change in meaning. CorinneSD (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed an editor changed something in etymology in Macrotis. Would you mind checking this edit? CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an improvement. Brown's Composition of Scientific Words says mys means mouse, muscle, and mussel. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Perhaps we should welcome the IP editor. CorinneSD (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Barley
I'm catching up on my watch list, and I saw a new comment on the talk page of Barley at Talk:Barley. Perhaps you can address the concern. CorinneSD (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I really don't understand why that is done. Barley flour has components that are healthy, but it generally makes poorer bread and noodles than wheat unless it is very carefully added. Malting reduces some of the healthy properties. On the other hand, barley is cheap, and malt tastes and smells good. I couldn't find an article that explains why the mixing is done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Willow
What do you think of the latest edit to Willow? CorinneSD (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, erudition more-or-less for its own sake. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon
What do you think of the latest edit to Cinnamon, changing "BC" to "BCE"? CorinneSD (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That has been dealt with. The spam added instead of a dead link can fortunately be fixed by recourse to BHL. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Celery
Could you take a look at the latest edit to Celery? An editor added one sentence. If it is correct, does it need to be sourced? Also, do you think it is all right as a separate paragraph, or could it be fitted into the appropriate place in another paragraph? CorinneSD (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May I offer a take? I'd put a solid reference after it. At the moment it is a single-sentence paragraph, which is not something that is desirable in a quality article, so I would venture to say added to an existing paragraph or expand it to its own 3-4 sentence paragraph. I see Sminthopsis84 asked you to improve Cucurbita and you agreed. Thank you.   HalfGig   talk  01:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is probably excessive detail, but I've made a description section to hold the celery strings. I might not be able to get to work on Cucurbita for a couple of or three days. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pansy
I've just started reading the article on Pansy. I just wondered what you thought of the last two sentences in the section Pansy. I never heard that information about what pansies are sometimes called in the U.S. CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's unsourced, and I think it could (should) be removed; it sounds like a passing in-joke. If you wanted to organize a Vernacular names section, some of that material could be separated. There are too many images on that page ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh? What? To many images?? OK, that picture that you asked about is obviously a copyvio issue, tell Stefan or some other guy who works whit this issues. Hafspajen (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * People put in their latest photos, it seems, all similar. I made a deletion request. Not sufficient? Should I bother Stefan? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

please see my comment at Talk:Pansy. I'd greatly value your opinion on this issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There seem to be messes wherever one looks for information about Pansies and Violas. I'll go to the library to see what Gleason and Cronquist have to say, since there is a mangled mention of them on that page. USDA GRIN is interesting, it says "Viola ×wittrockiana Gams [or Viola Wittrockiana Group] Synonyms: (=) Viola ×hortensis auct. (=) Viola tricolor hort." I'd paraphrase that as people are calling them by whatever name they choose, and the synonyms are heterotypic. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, my experience of looking for information largely agrees with yours. However, there do seem to be some recent reliable horticultural sources using the name "Viola Wittrockiana Group", e.g. this. However, what exactly is covered by this name? All hybrid cultivars involving species from Viola sect. Melanium? Some subset of such cultivars? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, demonstrating that USDA GRIN has the latest information. So when GRIN says "complex hybrid, perhaps involving V. tricolor × V. lutea × V. altaica?" that seems to be the best attempt available to pin down the identity of the holotype. To my mind, the most illuminating statement I've seen is that V. wittrockiana is an octoploid that behaves like an autotetraploid, and I think therefore that when people refer to autopolyploid V. wittrockiana they are talking about the original strain. Selective breeding on such an organism would be difficult, and I expect that explains the experiments with cross-pollination that produced reduced chromosome numbers (through parthenogenesis).
 * It is said that different people were working on hybrids with V. tricolor at around the same time, but I wonder if the story has become confused, so that some of the products were the so-called violas and violettas, that may simply be confused through the common name "pansy". I think it would be very helpful to know the chromosome numbers of those. I'd like to know the chromosome number of V. tricolor L. non hort. too.
 * A taxonomist who accepts that there is more than one species in sect. Melanium would not, I'm sure, lump species of different hybrid origin together. If multiway hybridization occurs, they probably would merge the species under one name, not the wittrockiana name, but the name of an original species (because of nomenclatural priority).
 * Gleason and Cronquist take that approach. They offer no enlightenment that I can see, except perhaps the common names; everything they list is a violet except V. tricolor L. Pansy "Native to the Old World, modified by extensive horticultural hybridization, and rarely escaping from cult. in our range." and V. arvensis Murr. European field-pansy. "In cult. or abandoned fields ... native to Europe."
 * I'd like to see the page become about V. wittrockiana, the octoploid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding "too many images", I'll leave it to you to decide how many is appropriate. I just wanted to point out that two of the images -- the pink one next to Pansy and the lavender one next to Pansy -- have nearly the same caption, describing the arrangement of petals. Perhaps only one description is sufficient.


 * I also wanted to point out an interesting comment on the talk page of the article (which I saw after reading Peter's comments). It's at Talk:Pansy. The comment was posted in 2012, and besides a short silly comment right below it, no one has responded to it. The text in question is still in the article. I know it's a minor point, but I think it is a valid point. CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, we really need some original literature for this. Perhaps it is just remotely possible that the gardener's employer receive instruction on how to artificially cross-pollinate the different species, so that it could be said that she did it under the supervision of her gardener ... If so, clarification would be in order! It does look very much like one of those all-too-common situations where wikipedia manages to invert a statement, to get the meaning backwards. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Worcesterberry
There seems to be some confusion over the name "Worcesterberry" in the UK. The RHS does list it as an English name for Ribes divaricatum, so the recent addition can be sourced, but it also lists Ribes 'Worcesterberry' as a cultivar here. However, I can't find anything more about the cultivar in a reliable source, unfortunately, and at least one of the nurseries the RHS lists as selling the cultivar actually lists it as R. divaricatum. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems quite confused. I've sent you email about this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Isatis tinctoria
I was looking at the latest edit to Isatis tinctoria. While I understand changing "Other states" to "These states" (because no state had been mentioned in the text -- although the first reference mentions Arizona). However, since there is a reference right after the statement beginning "These states include...", I'm wondering whether the first reference (the one that mentions Arizona) is necessary. There's not much that needs referencing in that first sentence (the one just before the Arizona reference). CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was duplicating the citation too. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita 2
You should read and responde here: User_talk:CorinneSD   HalfGig   talk  23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind; I removed my user name from the heading. Do you agree with this edit? CorinneSD (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (I hope I did what was wanted back in November.) Yes, I was raised to take that sort of action in response to "comprised of", to turn it into "comprising" or "composed of". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've discussed this several times with Rothorpe. I think "comprised of" is American English. We also use "composed of". There's a slight difference in meaning between those so the word has to be chosen carefully. We hardly ever use "comprise" or "comprises". The first time I saw it was on WP. CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * American English is very odd to me sometimes. I stick to the French-derived meaning only. I've heard statements like "The members comprise the team." quite often, but wouldn't use that myself. I think there is a small problem with "an embryo composed of two rather large cotyledons" since Cucurbita seeds are apparently quite normal and contain a plumule, radicle, and hypocotyl as well. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is well-worded now. What other American English usages have you found odd? One that I hear often is, "If I would have seen/heard/known...., I would have...." with "would have" in both parts of the sentence, instead of "If I had seen/heard/known..." Also, "less people" instead of "fewer people". "Few" and "fewer" seem to be disappearing. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like "if I would have" occurs in Australian dialects too, or even "if I would of". I was ruminating about some of the odd usages that might or might not be peculiarly American, particularly those where the meaning is in some sense reversed, like comprise to mean makes up rather than includes, decimate to remove 90% instead of to remove 10%, oversight to mean something other than a lapse, a billion to mean fewer than the other billion. I think we should avoid them if at all possible, even if the usage becomes common. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Another word to avoid that has two rather opposite meanings, gratuitous. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Well that was a good example of why I feel I shouldn't edit these pages. That was a "false friend" I didn't was aware of, thank you. --RoRo (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. It's also a good example of why I don't edit pages in other languages, even a language that I sometimes speak. Of course, I should do so, in order to learn. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Julia Wilmotte Henshaw
I just created this. I thought you may like to work on it. She's a Canadian botanist who served in WWI. HalfGig  talk  17:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have doubts about the claim that she scientifically described Cypripedium acaule. There is certainly a description of it in her books, e.g., here. The name is due to Aiton, who provides a Latin description here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. Is there anything she is officially credited with describing? Also found varying dob dod dates, made a note. When we're done smoothing this, we can DYK it if you like. I'm done for the moment.   HalfGig   talk  18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * She did name Claytonia sessilifolia (Torr.) Henshaw, based on Claytonia caroliniana var. sessilifolia Torr., about which IPNI says "comb. nov. was made inadvertently; direct reference to the basionym lacking; Henshaw (Wild Fl. N. Amer. Mt. 124. 1915) abandoned C. sessilifolia and used C. lanceolata". So no, there apparently isn't anything worth mentioning. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Anything else you want to do on this or shall we DYK it?  HalfGig   talk  19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What would you say about her for DYK? Her anti-suffrage, pro-conscription activities may be interesting. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'll cook something up and give you the nomination link and you can look over, propose alternates, etc.   HalfGig   talk  00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There she goes: Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Wilmotte Henshaw   HalfGig   talk  01:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that Nomen ambiguum figured out what was going on with Cypripedium acaule! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Flax 2
I just wondered what you thought of the latest edit to Flax in which an editor removed a clause saying when the Neolithic period began, saying it was misleading. I looked at the article on the Neolithic, and the date for the beginning of that period given in the first paragraph of the lead corroborates "about 12,000 years ago". Do you think it is misleading? CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what that editor meant, but it is apparently untrue. The article cited says no such thing. It would have been useful, I think, to explain when the Neolithic revolution started, but no mention of it was appropriate, it seems. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A bowl Pea Blossoms for you!

 * How lovely! The title "pea blossoms" is an unusual one in English, I think, where they are usually called "sweet peas", though that is ambiguous because the little green vegetables are also called "sweet peas". They are wonderful flowers: sometimes it's possible to buy them for botany classes, and the students generally refuse to dissect them, or if they do they take even the half-flowers home with them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it was in the picture file name. Do you eat them? Hafspajen (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea, apparently. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I used to eat Robinia flowers in pankake dough. Very tasty. Hafspajen (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is just the seeds that people worry about. "Culinary herbs" Small, Ernest, NRC Research Press, 2006. just says "Do not confuse pea with sweet pea (Lathyrus odoratus L.), which is poisonous (Creasy 1988). The citation is to Creasy, R. 1988. "Cooking from the garden". Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If they say so, they are probably right. I only tasted Robinia flowers. But that is quite common to eat, I think. here, delicious! Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never tasted Robinia flowers. There are a lot of R. pseudoacacia around here because of a crazy government plan in the 1960 to get people to plant trees, not native trees, just cheap trees, so the spiny suckers are quite a hazard in "natural" areas. There are a lot of ornamental R. × ambigua with the magenta flowers here, and the golden-leaf R. pseudoacacia cultivars, which, mercifully, seem to be spineless. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

HM, why not plant something from the enviromrent around you? It tastes god, like vegetables and honey and flowers. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC) What do you eat? Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, can't talk English!! As world economic history always told us, that the costly spending sources economic models always had economy of spending costs, so that the starting of costly spending sources economic models always had start from the low cost of raw sources materials and low cost of industrial processing of this raw sources materials, that’s why I believe, that the natural raw sources materials which had a much valence was developed in the first place! As the world industrial history always told, that at first was developed a mineral raw sources which had a low cost of raw material production, as well as had a natural raw sources material which had a low cost of industrial processing, so that I believe that natural gases which had a much valence was developed in the first place. Am I sounding weird.? Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes. What have you been eating? What valence or valence or valence did it have? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just tried some pea Pea Blossoms -  Hafspajen (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no, you seemed to become a bot! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult you know. Will you give oppinion on explosions? Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to be a bot? Well that makes sense. Some people who started out able to use language, after going through extensive post-graduate training have come out writing rather as you did above. I guess it takes a lot of work to become a bot (or the right plant). I commented on the explosions. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Collard greens
I was just looking at the latest edits to Collard greens. I made a few minor copy-edits, but then I continued reading a bit. I saw a sentence that I wanted to ask you about. It's the last sentence in the section Collard greens. It reads:


 * Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have recently discovered that 3,3'-diindolylmethane in Brassica vegetables such as collard greens is a potent modulator of the innate immune response system with potent antiviral, antibacterial and anticancer activity.

I wonder if both instances of the word "potent" are necessary. If it's best to have some adjective before both "modulator" and the final phrase, perhaps a synonym could be substituted for one of them. CorinneSD (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more readable without the first of those two. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

El Cazangero
Finding more copyvio at Queen of Sheba. A shame. He means well I'm sure but doesn't understand our policies and thinks we are somehow doing something nefarious by bringing them up. We'll see how he responds to my edits and my posts to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You did a very nice job of trying to explain this to him; I hope the message gets through. It would be a pity to have to bring a CCI down on him, but that may be necessary to protect wikipedia. Some of his inserted text is small enough that with lots of effort we could probably just fix it, but unfortunately there are other misunderstandings that get in the way of that. He has been arguing with several editors about changes that make a muddle for readers; some evidence is above at, where he accuses me of mutilating an article by inserting material into the lead section. He doesn't seem to see hyperlinking and encyclopedic structure as good things. I'm not sure if you have been looking at the articles he has been working on about plant-derived products, Opopanax, Balsam, Bdellium. There is a serious problem there that is not his fault, that he is using poor sources. There are materials by botanists (I'm still tracking one of those down) that discuss the plants and say that much misinformation has been copied and re-copied, and it is that misinformation that he has found. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Botany isn't at all my field, and apologies to all and especially User:Hafspajen, I hate beetroot. But it appears the problems may be worse than I thought. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, Doug, just go and hate it, no worries (the beetroot). Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Beetroot brownie recipes on the Web look quite good, might get the stove working to try those out. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a CCI request at WP:CCI. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (SSss.. Think about poor Doug... hope they taste good ... ) Hafspajen (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I'll try to keep watch for a CCI list to be constructed, and I should be able to help with the clean-up. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Betanin
If you have time, could you review the latest edits to Betanin? CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dill
I was just looking at the latest edit to Dill; I saw that the editor added a comma after a reference, and I think "punctuation goes before references" (but I don't know how to add that automatically as I've seen done). I was going to change it, but then I saw that the last part of the sentence doesn't seem to belong in the etymology section at all. I wonder how it got there. Do you want to fix this? CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  I noticed this edit to Dill . Overall, it looks like an improvement. Here are the first three sentences of that paragraph:


 * When used as a companion plant, dill attracts many beneficial insects as the umbrella flower heads go to seed. It makes a good companion plant for cucumbers. It is a poor companion for carrots and tomatoes.


 * There seems to be a disconnect between the first and second sentence: there is no indication as to whether there is any connection between dill's being a good companion plant for cucumbers and a poor one for carrots and the fact that dill attracts man beneficial inseects as the...flower heads go to seed. If there is a connection, I think there needs to be some transitional word or phrase between the first and second sentence (after "go to seed"). The editor removed "Fittingly". Perhaps there is another word or phrase that could be put there. CorinneSD (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is that there's not necessarily any connection between what plants a particular plant is a good companion for and what others it may interfere with. About "fittingly", that assumes that dill is used mostly with cucumbers, and I don't think that's a worldwide style of cuisine, and in any case the point is a bit stretched, so I think leaving it out is okay. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thomas W. Whitaker
I have this in main article space now. Can you look it over for accuracy, format, copy editing, etc etc? Then we can DYK it. Thank you. HalfGig  talk  00:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Already made the DYK nomination.   HalfGig   talk  01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thomas_W._Whitaker I'm sure nothing will be done about that insult.  HalfGig   talk  10:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, there's ME123. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Eggplant
Do you agree with the latest edit to Eggplant? An editor changed "India and Bangladesh" to "the region of South Asia". CorinneSD (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds reasonable. I'd have to go to the library to check that book, and am not sure when I could do that. Other books that I have say that the wild species grows on dry hills, and that GRIN says that it has a wide distribution all the way to the middle east without listing Bangladesh (it might be old info, from when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan), so an exact place where domestication occurred could be hard to pin down. Another GRIN page says that two independent origins seem likely, though I don't know how that meshes with the phylogenetic data saying that the "insanum" and "incanum" groups overlap and aren't really distinguishable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll have to read the article again, but I was surprised to read somewhere, when I looked at your recent edits, that eggplant exists only as a result of cultivation. I suppose that is probably true of some other plants as well, but the idea that a vegetable or fruit only exists as a result of careful human work is interesting. I'm wondering, what was it before it was developed/cultivated by humans? Was it a little fruit? And why is Italian eggplant often round while Asian eggplant is long and skinny? Was that just a result of the preferences of the local people? Regarding the possible two independent origins of cultivation, (a) is that at all related to the two general shapes I just mentioned, and (b) couldn't eggplant (fruit, seeds, or plants) have been carried by ship from the Middle East to the Far East, or vice versa? CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't put in a good citation for that statement, though it is implied in the three articles that I read (one of them the GRIN database). It is fairly common for cultivated crops to be considered a different species, either traditionally by botanists who saw the obvious differences in shape, toxicity, etc., or by modern botanists who find that the crop plant won't interbreed with its known or putative ancestor (the Biological species concept). I was searching for something that I consider interesting, but didn't find it in this case, that the crop plant could be tetraploid derived from a diploid ancestor or a tetraploid hybrid between two diploids (or octaploid as in strawberries, ...). The tetraploids generally can't interbreed with diploids, or only very occasionally, so it's an instant speciation event that interests me. The other questions you ask are, I think, exactly the ones that have puzzled scholars, and which there may be good recent answers for, but there's rather a flood of somewhat older literature that is confused and/or wrong. It's hard to sort out. I don't know if the two independent origins that GRIN mentions refers to the idea that they can be separated into Solanum melongena var. incana and Solanum melongena var. insana, which it is now said that they cannot. I hope that the generally available literature will become more readable soon. Characteristics of shape, texture, colour can be changed quite rapidly by selective breeding in many crops, someone just needs to find a mutant plant and propagate it, so I suspect that they might not be a good indicator of ancestry in this case either. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is slightly over my head, but I appreciate the explanation and learned something. I have two questions: 1) What is GRIN? and 2) What do "diploid" and "tetraploid" mean? CorinneSD (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, GRIN is |USDA GRIN, Germplasm Resources Information Network. It's an excellent source, with at least one world-beating taxonomist on staff (I hope they pay him), but hasn't in all cases kept up with the latest plant taxonomy (inadequate funding, the usual problem). Diploid organisms have the "normal" number of chromosomes, and tetraploids have twice that number. A diploid and a tetraploid can almost never interbreed, and if they do their offspring are triploid, and triploids are almost entirely infertile. The number of chromosomes can double fairly often as eggs and sperm are made, and if two of those doubled ones get together, the result is a tetraploid. That spontaneous doubling therefore produces a ==>**new species**<== (fanfare). I had hoped to find that eggplants are tetraploid, but that may not be the case.
 * The problem with making the eggplant page totally make sense is one that we have rather often with crop plants, that the venerable sources that people want to cite for WP:RS are out of date. The new discoveries will take a bit longer to filter through to the standard texts. In the meantime, it is quite confusing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation and the link to GRIN. This is why you're so valuable at WP! CorinneSD
 * Blush.png Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this correct? CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just left a comment at User talk:Plantdrew if you want to see it. Let me know if you think I should just stay out of plant article edits because I don't know what I'm talking about. My ignorance of plants will be somewhere between obvious and glaring. I just don't like long, cumbersome, syntactically awkward sentences. Regarding your change of photo on your user page, I love the new photo! This animal is so cute. I've never seen one in real life. I don't see any teeth, much less ferocious ones, though. What is it eating? It looks like sage or eucalyptus leaves and seeds. CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That page fits neatly with Peter's comment under that pages about food plants are generally a mess as people add unsourced material in inconsistent ways (I just added a bit more). Polishing the prose would take a lot of work and watching to prevent it from deteriorating again.

Those would be eucalyptus leaves. I've seen a Sminthopsis crassicaudata in a zoo, eating a very large moth. Its manners were less like those of a mouse than those of a tiny crocodile. I've never seen a pictorial representation of that aspect of the little animals. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the animal, Sminthopsis crassicaudata, I can imagine what you're saying because of the long, pointed jaw. Regarding Eggplant, what do you think of Plantdrew's re-wording (see his/her talk page; link is above)? It looks pretty good, I think. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

tb

 * I responded there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wondering about the spiral movement - though. Hafspajen (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that doesn't seem to be necessarily something one would see if the tips just spring apart. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article said that it was absent in Scandinavia, but really, wish it was absent - no, it is verry much present - actually the worst weed you have. Those blasted seeds explode all over the place when you just touch them wanting if to pull them out a flowebed. Sigh, ... and there you go, next years weeed are in. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A little earlier I saw that you had pruned your talk page. That must have been difficult. Don't you find it more manageable now? But I know it will get longer and more cluttered..er..filled with interesting discussions soon. Let me ask you something, when you type in "User:" in the search box -- just that -- what do you see in the autofill menu just below the search box? CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tb? You write tb in the talkback template   Hafspajen (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But why does one use that template? I see the template (light blue box just below the heading), but I still don't know what it's for. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What's occurring.. botheration .. cluttered? That is artistic.. very very much .. Hafspajen (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes. It is artistic. Couldn't you gather all the images you and others have placed on your talk page in one place so that we can find them if we wanted to look at them again? CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Where in one place? Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How does something like this work? While looking for that, I found this and this and wondered if they should be deleted. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, delete them. Especially the kiwi. (I presume it is a kiwi .. not a landslide) Hafspajen (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are gone. Oof! The other one was a copyvio. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Oh, didn't notice the user name before.) A common confusion in New Zealand, perhaps. I couldn't see a way to find out if there were other similar usernames to that one, since it doesn't show up in the search box when I type just the first few letters. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That I consider as a serious offence. What - watermelon ? Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's bad, and I'd guess it was not an isolated incident. I don't know admins at Commons; perhaps one of them could look for what other user names come from the same IP, but it's mobile, so I don't know what the possibilities for chasing such a thing could be. I expect that landslides in New Zealand might sometimes involve (big piles of) kiwi fruit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ACH ack. Hafspajen (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A cold? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nä. That would thanslate as Oh, ah, ahem... Vergeet mij nietje! Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aldrig. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Elegant. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You think that the addition is OK? Hafspajen (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So many additions, which one? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe there are to many. Guess you didn't got my ping on Tb. Hafspajen (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a ping, just the tb template. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, you got that now. Hafspajen (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no problem - wonder why are people so lazy overthere. Before it was a lot of people voting, now is everybody nominating but don't care vote on others, and that is also part of the process. Hafspajen (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't go to that page as often as I should. I just don't think of it. I'll look at the nominations a little later today and vote on some. Maybe there could be an icon or small box on the Wikipedia home page (the one with the featured article and the Did you know?), so people would see it and be reminded of it. Part of the problem for me is that I don't know how to judge the niceties (finer points) of image quality. CorinneSD (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, stick to art then. Hafspajen (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sminty, what do you think of this edit? PS: If you feel deleting something, try this. File:08-01-05 1458.jpgHafspajen (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That superscript photo is gone now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yikes! It's completely ungrammatical and unclear, and unsourced. I would revert with an edit summary that says "Unclear, ungrammatical and unsourced". CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see that it was reverted as unsourced. Smile.png Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was completely ungrammatical and unclear, and unsourced.. and I wonder if it was a joke or serious. Hafspajen (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of pea blossoms went in to that edit, it would seem. Jee's note about poor quality means not in scope was very helpful about that other photo, I didn't know about that. Will try a deletion request. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion requests don't need people to vote or comment on them, if I'm reading the instructions correctly, just admins to decide? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on this - but if a picture is bad qualty and not used... Usually if nobody opposed they might be deleted if the admin thinks so. Hafspajen (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, we had a lot of disruptions lately at FP, with a lot of socks ->Sockpuppet_investigation. Several accounts has been created and I think they are still in the process of being created as we speak. I always wonder when I see a new account suddenly  popping up - nowadays. Wondered if this was one of them, actually. Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter Crane is also an interesting artist. Hafspajen (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that all these images are becoming available. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just thought that someone would have asserted copyright on most of the world's images. Glad that isn't the case. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)