User talk:Pollinator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk archive

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Earth sandwich reply

Here's what I posted on the DVD guy's talk page:

I'm particularly upset that the entry was deleted without either your: a) contacting me (if you look at my contribuition history, I'm clearly not a vandal) or b) opening up your deletion decision to at least some public comment. However, I didn't know that it had been deleted earlier (there was no notice of such prior action when I created the article), so I can understand why you just went ahead and deleted it. Next time, I hope you'll be just a little more careful. For now, apology accepted.
Considering that people actually went to the trouble to place pieces of bread on opposite sides of the planet, though, it's hard to see it as "patent nonsense"...at least look at it as the kind of Internet meme that's usually covered on this website.
In response to some administrator's comment left on my talk page, I don't consider my comment on here abusive. I regularly use words like "asshole" to convey my frustration. Please be tolerant of my own cultural norms and don't try to impose yours on me. If I had threatened to Fedex a tarantula to DVD guy, or left repeated messages with "foul language" on his talkpage, then I would consider such a warning deserved. But to rush off to formally warn me of abuse after only trying to express my frustration over my article's being wrongfully deleted--I wouldn't say that creates a welcoming atmosphere here at Wikipedia.
Still, I'm sorry if you were hurt by my comment. (Yes, this is one of those half-assed apologies with a conditional phrase attached. That's the best you're gonna get from me.)--Plainsong 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I look and see that the Earth sandwich article has been deleted yet AGAIN! What's going on? I don't like being a troublemaker. Look at my record and see for yourself; I've made many valuable contributions on here. Why is my most recent not being respected? I hope that you, as an administrator, might be able to help me.--Plainsong 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Mills (architect)

I see that you are an architect. Some time ago I started the article on Robert Mills (architect), and it hasn't grown much. You might be interested in taking a look and see if you can add anything from your expertise. Pollinator 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a good start. I don't know anything about him off the top of my head, but I'll keep it in mind, and check my resources. Maybe I can add something later. Also, thanks for handling that other matter. DVD+ R/W 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
P.s. it looks like you could archive your talk page :). DVD+ R/W 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I already thought of some things, a section on the Washington monument, and mention or another section, on his architecture in the overall climate of neo-classicism, colonial architecture, federal style architecture and Beaux-Arts architecture. I am busy studying for the GRE today, but I will do some more research and try to write this evening. DVD+ R/W 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Pollinator

Hi, requesting the unblock on User:Plainsong. While I agree his actions were not appropriate, he is a veteran here and can self-soothe as opposed to being given a mandated cool down. Appreciate if you could reconsider. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Retracted, I just read his unblock diatribe. Do as you see fit. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Valleyfair! Linkspam

It isn't my site, and I didn't originally add it. It's a "Unofficial Valleyfair site". Lots of other parks have links to "Unofficial" sites on their pages. As far as I can tell, the only reason you're removing it is that it happens to have adsense adds, non-prominantly displayed at the bottom of the page. Since the page has a lot of content about Valleyfair! I feel it belongs on the page. But, I guess we'll have to see what others think on the Talk page. --Rehcsif 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not alone, Tim. Pollinator has been doing this in several topics. There is nothing wrong with your site and it is well within Wiki's own External Links rules. I'm sure Pollinator, and perhaps others, will disgree. But that's one of the problems with Wiki vigilantes. Making quick and swift judgement with the delete key in a topic they understand little about. It's very subjective and completely Pollinator's opinion. I'm sure he means well and feels justified, but he is actually contributing to one of Wiki's biggest issues. The Blackpool section below shows the problem in full, where he was shown to be wrong, but telling the user to challenge it. Slash, burn, and then ask questions later. It's very unfortunate. --Midwayfan 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys. If you propose a site with ads, and much more so, if it is YOUR site, it's YOUR job to justify the link on Wikipedia, not the spam patrollers. The spam patrol is just getting going. While people weren't watching, Wikipedia has been being sold. A lot more people that are making money off Wikipedia will be unhappy, but that's the way it is. Pollinator 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Pollinator, you still don't get it? It's NOT MY SITE! Is it that you don't believe me, or do you simply have a really hard time understanding English? As for the "selling out" of Wikipedia, I'd personally be a lot more concerned with the 10,000 squatter sites that mirror Wikipedia content to boost their google ratings than having links to informative sites that happen to have a few ads on them, but that's just me. --Rehcsif 14:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The External Link page does not say, "a site with an ad is bad." Maybe you should review your own rules? Wiki was such a nice place before it became the Wild, Wild West. http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/06/a_bureaucracy_o.php" - "Wikipedia’s plethora of bureaucratic levels and rules really does bother me precisely because it is a bureaucracy. But it is impossible to take Wikipedia’s bureaucracy seriously qua responsible editorial structure. If Wikipedia must have a bureaucracy, at least it could be a bureaucracy of people who possess genuine editorial skill and who lack ideological drums to beat." The drum, in this case, is blind fight against spam causing unnecessary casualties. There is a Wiki problem, and you are part of it, Pollinator. See, also Cutting off the nose to spite the face --Midwayfan 15:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. Time to slow down and read things a bit more carefully. My statements and the External links policy are both being misquoted. And yes, the mirror sites are a major problem that needs to be dealt with. Pollinator 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to deal with mirror sites, take a look at the Double Bluff Beach Access page and hit them with copyright violation. I contributed the image there licensed for sole use on wikipeida and not for use anywhere else. If requested, I will perform the complaint myself as copyright holder.
The image itself links to my site which may take on commercial content, but that will always be me and my photos any commercial gain will be for image sales (prints and licensing and perhaps ads[i.e., I fund it now and do not intend to change but the future rolls its own dice]). But the images will remain free for viewing at no cost (period). And the link (on the image) is simply a credit to me (i.e., my website that notes the creator). Does that go to far?
thanks,
Sean

[edit] sharpshooter

Hi. They don't cause much trouble in their native range (SE US and NE Mexico) - and I'm thinking there may be some other type of Xylella that they vector elsewhere, but it's the lack of control agents in California that turns them into a bonafide pest. Anyway, I've made use of that photo, though not the others. They can find homes easily enough now that they're IDed. Peace, Dyanega 16:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Pollinator 16:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackpool Pleasure Beach 235 Club

I applaud your spam fighting vigour but I feel your actions and message on my talk page were just a little harsh and unwarranted, I had restored that link to the 235 club good faith. I have no connection with the club but I don't feel a link to it is spam, it's the official club of Blackpool Pleasure Beach with plenty of information that is pertinent to the article and of course it charges for memberships as you would expect with a club. Funnily enough Blackpool Pleasure Beach itself charges for park entry and is very much a commercial entity yet theres a link to that on the wikipedia page. Maybe I don't know enough about wikipedia external link policy, but I do think you should at least know a little about the links you so quickly remove. I won't add the link back myself, I've had my wrists slapped by you. Just be careful in future you'll put people off editing all together if you threaten to block people when they disagree with you. --ericthefish 09:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, if a commercial enterprize is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, they get a free pass to one link to their official site, even if there is advertising. Otherwise, I don't mean to be harsh, but quickly re-adding a link when it's been deleted as spam immediately sets off the spam alarms. There are a lot of spammers making a lot of money off Wikipedia; they are persistent; and they don't care about the rules. Pollinator 16:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Pollinator, perhaps you need to review WP:AGF. You've labeled me a spammer, even though I didn't even add the link you accused me of adding (I merely challenged your revert). And it seems others are now taking issue with your overly-strict ideas of the linkspamming policy... Before you slap people on the wrist for 'spamming' perhaps you need to understand a few of the facts about the links you consider spam...--Rehcsif 17:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that I did not say you were a spammer, nor did I say you put the link there at first - just that you followed the pattern of spammers with your instant revert. And, sure, there's a lot of heat. In many of these cases the heat comes from someone's pocketbook being touched. Others are cases where someone has an overly high view of or great emotional involvement with his own page. In the cases of worthy pages that might be exceptions, be advised that we are working on a process where they can be reviewed by an impartial admin. You are welcome to initiate that if you wish. Contact an uninvolved admin and ask for a review. Then they can put the link back. It would be best to put an invisible note to that effect, of course.Pollinator 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
But you are, by definition, assuming bad faith. You saw my revert, even though my edit comment said that I felt the page had merits and the advertising was minimal (and have repeatedly stated I have absolutely no connection to the page), yet you immediately re-reverted it, assumed I must be "one of those bad spammers", etc, e.g. "assumed bad faith". To you, it seems, anyone who adds, or supports the adding of, an external link, is immediately held with great suspicion -- directly violating WP:AGF. As for 'not calling me a spammer', you added a blurb on my user talk page, which essentially labels me a link-spammer, and as I understand it, I have no way to challenge it and am not allowed to remove it. --Rehcsif 17:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I just suggested a simple way to challenge it. As far as any "stain" on your talk page, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. Everything ever posted on my talk page (except blatant vandalism) is still there. Openness is one of the characteristics of Wikipedia. On the other had it's YOUR talk page. It's very bad form to remove an administrator's warning or an ongoing dispute; however, once this is worked out, I have no problem with you removing the section, and, as far as I know there is no rule against that. Pollinator 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of external link

Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean of link spam. I sympathize with your efforts.

However, you removed an external link that I do not believe qualifies as link spam. You removed the link to a close-up photo of a popcorn from the Popcorn entry with the motivation "do not add links to pages with advertisements".

To my knowledge there is no Wikipedia policy against external links to pages with a reasonable, limited amount of advertising. Wikipedia:External_links says links to pages with "objectionable amounts of advertising" are not to be made, but I don't think you can argue that that is the case here. If there is a policy like you mention, please point me to it.

There is no equivalent close-up photo of a popcorn in the Wikimedia Commons, so I believe the photo does add value to the article.

I have added links to photos in various Wikipedia articles, but I do so in good faith to add photos as information where there are no similar photos previously in the articles. I am always up front about adding links, and try to enter good edit summaries of why. If you want to argue against a link to a photo, I will accept it if you motivate it by there being equivalent or better photos, or if you believe the photos are of too poor quality.

I have reverted your removal of the link. If you want to further motivate the removal this link, let's have a discussion here or on the Popcorn talk page!

I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor, and I hope to have a constructive discussion in good faith!

Erland Lewin 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any applicable Wikipedia policy on linking solely to photos on another page, but the problem here more general, as Internet protocol. Linking to a photo on a page, rather than to a page is coloquially known as "stealing bandwidth," and it is at least frowned upon across the Internet. If these are not your pages, do you have the webmasters' permissions to use their bandwidth in this fashion? If these are from your page or pages, why not upload them to Wikipedia? Pollinator 04:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Regardless of permission and better shots, the referenced photo had horribly boosted underexposed shadow and it is out of focus. I know I could craft a better shot in 15 minutes and that includes microwaving a bag of popcorn and washing my hands before touching the camera due to posing a greasy subject. i.e., the shot is not of particular value and is photographically a notch below a snapshot (i.e., there is not visible person that adds value to a technically damaged shot).
my $0.02,
Sean

[edit] RfC for Alienus

Pollinator, I know you have had problems with Alienus constantly reverting your edits in the past. If you are interested, I am collecting information to use in an RfC here. DavidBailey 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

No problem, it's my pleasure. =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larvacide

Should it perhaps be "larvicide"? That would look better to me, and gets more web hits. Both names should at least be mentioned in the article, unless they mean different things. Good work, by the way. --Stemonitis 11:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. And thanks. Pollinator 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of relevant external links

Hi, this is a curious question, not a complaint ;) You've recently removed two external links from inkjet printer, with a rather severe sounding edit summary, "rem linkspam - do not add commercial pages to Wikipedia". I didn't add these links, and have no personal interest in them. But the removal of them surprises me, and to be honest, if you weren't an admin (or other long-term editor) I'd have reverted your revert. They are at commercial sites, but they're not adverts. One is a mainstream British newspaper and the page consists of user comments on a relevant topic. The other is a commercial site but it's a help/resource page, not an advertisment. So, basically, I'm wondering if you're on a project/mission/crusade to remove all links to profit-making companies from Wikipedia, or if you know something I don't about the motives of the person who added those links... or what? Regards, – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 10:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take another look when I have a chance. But generally I look over a site with the question: Is this site here to make money? If so, Wikipedia is not here for free advertising, and the sites need to find commercial venues for that. Information can be added to the article. Remember the particular wording may be copyright, but information is free. We also remove sites that are apparently vanity sites to promote someone's interests, or to try to gain Google ranking, etc. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam for more info. Pollinator 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


One of the pages I'm watching is Letterpress. I noticed that you deleted an External link to a Youtube movie. I was going to just put it back, but since I'm also fairly new to Wikipedia, I wasn't exactly sure on the policy, I thought I'd raise the question with you. In the strict sense, the movie may be about a commercial entitiy. However, I haven't seen anything better that demonstrates how letterpress printing works. And, this guy is not really advertising. He's obviously an artist, not a big commercial printing company. He's showing what has now become an artistic process in a really interesting video. I think it's a worthwhile link. Also, are "required third party software" websites not allowed on Wikipedia? Wouldn't that cut out Quicktime or Flash Movies and all databases? Thanks, Sue Maberry 00:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wood Preservation

Please review the changes that I have to the article Timber treatment. --Lumber Jack 17:40, 4. Jul 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Cuculoupe

Copied from User talk:Leon7

Hello Pollinator: You recently deleted an edit I made on the Cucumber article regarding Cuculoupes. Within the last week, this info was on the AP news service and was picked up by hundreds of news web sites, television and radio stations, etc. I though that it would be of interest to the reader of the article because of it's unusual nature. Your stated reason for the delete was, "rem nonsense "documented" only by pulp magazine." I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for on breaking news. Obviously, it's too soon for it to hit the print magazines... yet. But, Here's one from a New Orleans newspaper. Here's one from CBS News. I found at least 500 news stories of this on Google. So what kind of documentation would you like to see? I could not find anything in "pulp magazine" that was relevant, so I don't know what "nonsense" you are referring to. I would, maybe understand it, if you were to say that it's not encyclopedic or professional or something along those lines, and I would respect your opinion. So please reconsider your edit. Otherwise, please educate me on proper citing, since I'm relatively new to WP. Thanks. Leon7 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Crosses among cucurbits are not impossible, but the story has some of the earmarks of a hoax, so I'd be cautious. Note the breathless tone of the story, as presented in the pulp magazine you provided as a reference. You half expect to hear them say it was fathered by Elvis.
Another thing that is conspicuous to anyone who works with cucurbits is the gaps in the story. The quoted "expert" says the cucumber and cantaloupe were planted "close together." The terminology seems unlikely, as this "expert" surely must know that simply being close together would not produce a cross. It's as if the pollen magically jumped from one plant to another. Cucurbit pollen is heavy and sticky and will not be airborne; it needs a pollinator, such as a bee, to carry it from one plant to another. Of course the "expert" could be talking down to a reporter, or the reporter might not be listening very well.
The fact that it was picked up by major news sources like CBS (why didn't you link to that in the first place?) reduces the possibility of a hoax, as they supposedly would check the story out. I'm still not entirely convinced though, as the major news agencies have been hoaxed as well. If you want to put it back in (with better sources), I won't remove it, as the onus will be on them, if it proves to be a phony. Pollinator 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I should have been more careful and had linked the story to a better source, like CBS. I also found out that Regis & Kelly had a taste on their show, which lessens the chance that it's a hoax. Thanks. Leon7 07:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • When you deleted it from the cantaloupe article, I had already added a real news citiation. I've restored it there as well, and added a cite for the AP story about Regis & Kelly. -- JHunterJ 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images on Squash vine borer

I'm pretty sure you provided these... I have a question about how to link them into a wikibook (with instructions on prevention and control, etc.). However, they are on WP, (not on commons), so I'm not sure if I need permission to use them there (or even how to do it).

In case you're wondering, the WB chapter is here. SB Johnny 01:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of relevant external links

Hi! I'm writing in reference to your deletion of the links I added to the Muscadine article. I know that they are commercial sites, but I thought it would be informative to include links to wineries producing this varietal in order to give Wikipedia users outlets by which to learn more about the wine. They weren't intended to be spam--I have no stake in the profits of either winery. Is there a Wikipedia regulation barring any external links containing commercial information? If not, I'd like to either re-add the links or agree on a criteria by which to judge whether commercial sites are appropriate. Best! Havardj 10:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm going to re-add the links for now, at least until you have time to respond to my query. Havardj 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed them; they are clearly commercial sites, with no information that could not be added to the articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam Pollinator 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. These guidelines are open to interpretation, but I'm going to say that what I ought to do is incorporate some of the information from the sites into the article, with citations. Are citations to commercial sites ok? Havardj Jack 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links - not clear on policy

Re: Tomato, sorry if the link violated Wikipedia policy, but I did read Wikipedia:External_links, and thought it would be okay. I am really just trying to learn a little about Wikipedia before signing up for an account... I'm not sure if you can see a history for IPs, but I've just added an internal link on one page and an external on two others, so I'm not a bot. The site linked to was not spam, had real info, and did not require membership. Are all sites with ads off limits?

It's not an absolute, but sites with ads have to be extremely good and have info not available elsewhere, to be an exception. In this case the nutrition info is freely available and in the public domain from the USDA, so it can be added to the article. There's no need to help someone sell something (or raise their Google rankings). Wikipedia is not about advertizing. Pollinator 21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Carolina

I've been trying to find people interested in improving the articles only related to York County, so I was rather disappointed to see what a shell the entire South Carolina project actually is (can a project page be marked "stub"?). Is there any hope for revitalizing (or just vitalizing) the project? What has been done? I've done some work with articles for local people and places, but would like to have a group to discuss certain points with, especially others actually in South Carolina. I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you! Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've not been around York County much. I hope to be contributing more on South Carolina as I have time, but am much more familiar with the Capital area, Greenville/Spartanburg, Charleston, and Myrtle Beach. Pollinator 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] green lynx

hi,

i uploaded your picture of a green lynx spider to the commons: Image:Greenlynx5640.JPG. do you remember where you took it exactly, and when? maybe we could this way tell if it is a Peucetia viridans or a P. longipalpis. Did you notice that we have now a WikiProject Spiders? Feel free to check it out, and contribute if you want :) --Sarefo 09:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgetown, SC. Wish I could contribute, but I'm more at home with six-legged critters... Pollinator 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sphinx 0889.JPG

Wow, how did you come up with Image:Sphinx 0889.JPG so quickly? Well, as long as you're helping out with Pollination syndrome, I wonder if you have a picture that focuses on the flower a little more? Cheers, Melchoir 04:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably do, but I'll have to look when I have more time. Pollinator 21:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Meanwhile, can you think of a good line for a Template talk:Did you know submission? Melchoir 05:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My mosquito edits

I have repeatedly cited wikipedia policy that specifically supports my edits. Fact is, much of this article reads as original research, for example: "Since many mosquitoes breed in standing water, source reduction can be as simple as overturning an old tin can, or can be as complex as permanently draining marshes. Much source reduction is a matter of education. For example, homeowners can eliminate mosquito breeding grounds by removing unused plastic pools, old tires, or buckets; by clearing clogged gutters and repairing leaks around faucets; by regularly changing water in bird baths; and by filling or draining puddles, swampy areas, and tree stumps. Eliminating such mosquito breeding areas can be an extremely effective and permanent way to reduce mosquito populations without resorting to insecticides." Fact is, to be includable on wikipedia, info must be notable and verifiable. Your assertion that "everybody" or "experts in this field" know about the information you add is not a sufficient basis for inclusion per wikipedia guidelines. I know you get that warm feeling of self righteousness when you revert my edits on sight (since our disagreement over There's a Skeeter on My Peter), but I was discriminating when I deleted what I did and I have wikipedia policy on my side. Interestingstuffadder 02:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't bothered to check any of the external links, several of which give references on source reduction. I don't suppose you've noticed either that I'm also discriminating in reverting your edits. If you make a good one, great! If you are getting far afield I revert. Since you seem to find this controversial, why don't you check the many common sources on this, and add the cites yourself, rather than just deleting useful information. My time on Wikipedia is very limited; and you seem to have a lot of it. And your remarks above show that your edits have at least an element of a personal grudge in them, so I mention again, WP:POINT which obviously is very relevant. Pollinator 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith (as wikipedia policy require syou to do). This has nothing to do with a personal grudge. Cites should be at the end of individual sentences; users and editors should not have to dig through "common sources" to verify what is stated in articles. Wikipedia policy on verifiability clearly puts the burden of providing sources on the person who inserts information -- I can legitimately remove unsourced information and policy imposes no obligation to add citations upon me. Interestingstuffadder 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Please assume good faith (as wikipedia policy requires you to do) and re-read your first comment above... Thank you. Pollinator 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I happily retract my comment regarding self righteousness if you read that as a violation as assume good faith. I still stand by my assertion that all of my actions are absolutely supported by wikipedia policy. Please be nice and a touch less condescending; also try actually considerting my arguments and responding to them with something other than snappy one liners or arguments not rooted in wikipedia policy. If you do these things maybe we can get past this silly bickering and move towards what I sincerely to be out shared goal of building a better wikipedia. Interestingstuffadder 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
On another note, great job on the source reduction cite. That is exactly what I am looking for. Interestingstuffadder 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing photos

I'm sorry if I offended you with my edits. I did not "delete" your photo as you accuse, evidenced by the fact that you seemingly had no trouble re-adding it to the article. Considering that the whole theory of Wikipedia is built on editing, changing, and removing others' work, I'm a bit perplexed by your harsh reaction to this. Your image was good but it was of low resolution and does not clearly show the form of a paper mill. There is no reason to have two images on such a short article. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. I requested the image for Wikipedia directly from the mill's management and was furnished with it and given explicit permission to use it for this purpose. If this is insufficient or my tags are inappropriate, please correct me on this. Furtheremore, I would greatly appreciate you assuming good faith in the future, as I can assure you my intentions were nothing but. Thank you.--Daveswagon 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Camp linkspam??

Hi. You left a rather stern linkspam warning regarding Jesus Camp on my talk page today.

I have to admit I am a bit confused, as so far as I know, I have not added any external links to websites with which I am either directly or indirectly affiliated to any Wikipedia articles, with the exception of three external links on my user page, all of which are clearly labeled as "full disclosure" so as to let Wikipedians know my affiliation openly.

Additionally, I have not posted any external links regarding this film or this subject on any pages except the article itself.

I have gone through the article again and the only external links that I have had anything to do with are to the movie's official website, the website of the distribution company (synopsis), the website of the organization depicted in the film. All of these appear to fall within WP:EL.

Perhaps you have me confused with some other Wikipedian??? If not, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of my specific activities that constitute linkspamming — especially as I remove linkspam when I identify it as such. Thanks!

Puzzledly,
Twisted86 05:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, again. I haven't heard back from you regarding the above question. I can see from your contributions page that you have been busily editing, but if you could take just a moment to answer my questions, either here or on my talk page, I would appreciate it. If I am doing something wrong, I would certainly like to know what it is so that I can avoid doing it again. Thank you. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] logo change

Hi You removed two links in Logo. Why are the remaining links acceptable? Cochese8 18:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BrandsOfTheWorld.com

Hi Pollinator,

I just wanted to leave you an note that I'm incredibly frustrated by something you did on the Logo page. (→External links - rem linkspam - Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising) I found that site several weeks ago (probably here on Wikipedia) and found it to be a tremendous resource. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark it and I have since looked all over for it. My first stop was Wikipedia of course, but it wasn't there. So then I looked all over God's green earth and wasted literally about three (3) hours trying to find it. I gave up and went to the Talk page to leave a request asking for someone to add it if anyone knows about it. After saving, I noticed that Mrqva had left a note about the site asking why the link had been removed, and it was removed just four days ago!!! If you are sensing intense frustrated by an overly pendantic deletion that wasted three hours of my time *and* kept many others from learning about that great site, then you are very perceptive. Hmmmfgh.

MikeSchinkel 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Burn9582.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Burn9582.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Beekeeping

Hi - would you be interested in joining WikiProject Beekeeping? It's a new project, but it's my hope that it will quickly grow as we spread the word about it to whoever may be interested. Thanks, Martinp23 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Hendersonville downtown 9230.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hendersonville downtown 9230.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bee scale 8948.JPG

Just dropping by to pay you a compliment. Image:Bee scale 8948.JPG is superb. Thanks for contributing this great shot! — Coelacan | talk 03:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carpenter bees

Hi there. I saw your note about carpenter bees in response to a question on the Bumblebee:Talk page. That's hilaaaarious! I checked out the Carpenter bee page linked from it, but found only a watered down version about patrolling and pursuing in the [behaviour section]. Is it possible for you to go and add more detail along those lines? You clearly seem fairly knowledgeable in the area... Thanks! --Arvedui 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images on commons...

Hi Pollinator... I keep running across really amazing photos of garden pests on wikipedia articles that I've imported to wikibooks, and you're the creator of most. Just curious: is there any particular reason you're not uploading them on commons instead? I've moved several of your images to commons, and will do a bunch more, but if you'd be willing to save me a step with future downloads, that would be most appreciated :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just to make the problem clear: to move them, I have to download the image, and then re-upload it to commons. Aside from allowing use on wikibooks, uploading to commons also allows image use on other-language wikipedias... a much better way th share your works with the world! :-) Also, I really prefer the dual-licence format, just in case someone wanted to use the images in a classroom without having to print out the 2-page GFDL in a handout.... just something to think about. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] apostrophocide

Heh, I saw one of your "apostrophocide" edits and liked the term. Looks like you're the only person Google has for this one. You're a vocabulary pioneer! - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pollination project (book version)

Hi Pollinator, I'm redoing the SVB page now (used import to bring the full article over and reworking from there... there's a lot more templates now too), and it reminded me that you had started a stub volume on pollination. Would you be interested in helping get that kick started?

I think the best way to proceed would be to come up with a list of pollination-related wikipedia articles, which I could then import to wikibooks (we have Special:Import enabled), and then start rewriting them as book chapters. I'm looking for general articles on the subject, as well as articles on pollinating insects (and other creatures), beekeeping, good nectar-source plants, etc. I'm also writing stuff up about garden chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, etc.), and I get the feeling you might know which ones are safe around bees.

In case you're not familiar with the Import tool, this brings the article and all it's revisions over to wikibooks in one step (only admins can use it, but I'm an admin, so no problem there). For this kind of project it couls save a lot of time and effort, since the chapters don't need to all be written from scratch, and they're fully GFDL compliant.

Anyway, do you have a good list somewhere to get me started (and, would you be into helping on the books side)? You're sort of the resident expert on this, which is why I'm asking you. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a lot more work is needed on pollination. And many plant species don't have anything on their pollination specifics, so I've been wishing I had the time to do a lot of work on it. But that probably won't happen unless I retire again (went back to work); my time on Wikipedia is quite limited.
Also, I have no idea how to use the "import tool" or even what it is. And what is SVB? I uploaded some images to commons once, then could not find out how to link them, so I suppose they are "lost." Can you explain a little more specifically, as I don't have a lot of time to go into the tech aspects?
Finally, please keep in mind that, unless you would say "Catholics and Christians," you ought not to say "herbicides and pesticides," because herbicides ARE pesticides. And "it's" is a contraction of "it is" not a possessive form... Pollinator 04:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OK... I'll do some research on the pollination stuff, though primarily on chemical sensitivity. Though one thing I'm wondering about: have you heard any bad things about Beauveria bassiana when it comes to collateral damage to pollinators? I'm researching that today (it's a fungal biocontrol of unknown selectivity).
Linking to commons images is the exact same as linking to a file in wikipedia's Image: namespace. For example, if you look now at Image:Hawk_moth_7294.jpg (your upload), you'll notice that the wikipedia page is actually just a copy of the commons page (the image here was actually deleted after I moved it to commons). The one thing to watch for on commons though is to make sure to add the licence tag as you're loading it, because unlicenced images are speedy-delete candidates the second they appear.
SVB -- Squash Vine Borer. The import tool is a tool that makes a full copy of an article and moves it to wikibooks, with all revisions, so you can look through the edit history on either copy, and it's better for copyright reasons.
I use "herbicide" vs. "pesticide" because that's how the words are used in the trade. I will be switching that to "herbicide", "insecticide", "acaricide", molluscicide", etc. as I get around to more substances. And yeah, "it's" is a bad keyboarding habit :). I don't do that when writing long-hand, but it tends to pop out of my keyboard. Feel free to correct me. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the link to Beauveria bassiana. I think I've seen it on maggots and caterpillars, but never knew what it is. In fact, I think I have some photos, if I can find the time to find them. I've never noticed it on bees or bee larvae. Other than that, it's a brand new item to me. I'll be watching for more on it now. I might pose a question about it to some of my entomological friends.
And thanks for the explanation of the photo links. I guess it was too simple for me to get it... Pollinator 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I did find some mention in the literature about possible hazards to pollinating insects (as well as some other scary things). See b:A Wikimanual of Gardening/Beauveria bassiana. Looks like pretty much any arthropod not adapted to live in soil is vulnerable (which makes me wonder whether and how it would affect Bumblebees and Yellow Jackets). My guess is that it would be a total nightmare if this stuff was introduced into a beehive (there are formulations labeled for both fire ants and termites, so I assume it can be brought back to the colony by individuals).
Speaking of photos... do you happen to have any of mealybugs or aphid mummies? I can't find either on commons. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of slab-on-ground under heading "concrete"

In the caption to this phote there is a small error. The word "rebar" is slang for reinforcement bar. What the workers are placing is not rebar but welded wire reinforcement, abbreviated WWR, sometimes called welded wire mesh. (Comment by 75.46.23.109) Pollinator 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the enlarged photo. It's not welded, it's wired together - and I'm pretty sure it's rebar. Pollinator 14:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seneca nation

Hello Pollinator.

I understand that you recent reverted the Seneca Nation page based on some rationale that the page was edited heavy handily and in a biased manner. Please understand that this page has been edited in the past in a heavy handed and biased manner and requires some serious edits to correct.

Also, keep in mind that there are individuals that wish to edit the Seneca Nation page in a manner that reflects extremely negatively on the Seneca Nation. Do you know who these individuals are? I do, and their name is constantly on the page. If you want to get involved then please do so, but do not do so in a manner that assist people that are considered by every native nation to be racists and extremely anti-native.

If you do not know what is going on with this page, then please provide assistance, not some robotic knee jerk reaction to an edit that does not conform to the ideals of wikipedia. It may not conform for a serious reason that requires exposure to the light of day beyond the normal means of communication.

As such, did you read the content I edited into the page. It is all factual and based on information the comes directly from the Seneca Nation. I should know, because this is the information that I work with everyday. Other editors to this page have an agenda against the Seneca Nation and do not want the Seneca Nation to provide its voice to the page that describes it. I feel that you are not one of these people (from your content, it appears that you are very much devoted to Wikipedia). Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum to promote hate against a group of people, especially a discreet and insular minority. My edits do not promote animosity, but provide a well rounded truth about the Seneca Nation.

I expect you to review the edits you made to the Seneca Nation page and evaluate the content prior to upholding your reaction to my edits. If you perceive that I am out of line and wish to uphold your revert, then I will insist to Wikipedia monitors that the page be monitored due to the seriousness of the implications involved.

Thank you for your time and effort in making wikipedia a better place. Onigeahyoh.

Scuggy 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Responded at Talk:Seneca nation Pollinator 14:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plants and pollinators

I like your Category:Plants and pollinators category, which I just saw you add to Banksia brownii. I'll keep it in mind for other articles I'm involved in; for example, I'm about to tag Ecology of Banksia into it. Do you think it appropriate for any article that mentions pollination, however briefly? For example, would you put Banksia epica in this category? Banksia integrifolia? Banksia? Hesperian 04:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Up to now, mere mention of pollination has not been added to the category. I think it should be treated a little more extensively, don't you? Can you add info on pollination, as you add it to the category? Pollinator 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand you. By "it should be treated a little more extensively", do you mean that we should tag articles into the category more extensively, i.e. mere mention of pollination should be enough to warrant inclusion in the category? Or that we should require a more extensive discussion of pollination before admitting it into the category? I guess I prefer the latter approach; I would prefer to include only articles that attempt an extensive discussion on pollination, rather than just mentioning it in passing.
Banksia epica remains a thorny example. Very little is known of the species, so the brief paragraph on pollination is not only extensive but exhaustive, yet it remains not really very much:
Pollinators of B. epica include the New Holland Honeyeater and the Yellow-rumped Thornbill. No other pollinators have been recorded, but the species is poorly surveyed, and studies of other Banksia species have consistently indicated a wide range of invertebrate and vertebrate pollinators. For example, a survey of the closely related and co-occurring B. media found that "honeyeater birds and marsupial nectarivores were abundant in the study area and most carried the pollen of Banksia media while it flowered... self-pollination and pollination by insects clearly also play major roles in seed production."
Hesperian 05:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the latter approach is what I intended, although, as you note B. epica could be a candidate simply because so little is known...and the article summarizes that in entirety Pollinator 05:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] silversword pollinators

I removed the mention of pollinator loss being a factor in silversword rarity. I studied the native bees (which are almost certainly the main pollinators), and Haleakala has one of the highest densities of native bees in Hawaii. As for the Mauna Kea silversword, it's probably more of a problem that the plants have been pushed into areas where the bees don't live. KarlM 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dizzy Gillespie

noticed you did some edits there a while back - check it out now. I noticed you uploaded the picture of his statue - seen it often on my drives from NC though SC and would have uploaded a picture if you hadn't already (I think the statue is more than life size.) Anyway lot's of changes and a touch of controversy about the opening paragraph.--Smkolins 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Southern United States

Please don't delete other people's comments from Talk pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. Apparently there was a glitch in the software due to an edit conflict. Pollinator 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article: Fertilizer - External link to Fertilizer Institute (Your edit @ 05:46, 9 January 2007)

I have restored the correct link to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org/factsandstats/fertilizer.cfm) which had been vandalised by an unknown "contributor" (24.162.76.235). I am not sure how one can protect against this kind of subversion of external links. Any useful suggestions? 81.131.52.110 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK so you have nothing to say about your careless deletion. Why did you not revert to the previous version which would have restored the correct link. Perhaps you prefer wikipedia to be a blank page. 81.131.32.119 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been on Wikipedia so did not see your previous message. But the link is a spam link, and has such will be removed. I note that another editor also removed it. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. Pollinator 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lepidoptera

Hi Pollinator, just been on Wikibreak so just got your message. I will see what I can do with your lep pics but it may be a little generalized as I don't know much about American species Richard Barlow 12:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bees and inebriation

Please take a look at my rough draft at User talk:Filll/beedrunk and give me your opinion.--Filll 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With the help of User:Dyanega, I have now revised User talk:Filll/beedrunk and I am pondering publishing it on WP as Bees and intoxication or some such title. Comments?--Filll 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM message

Hi. This is a dynamic IP from Poland. So please delete your message. --83.11.78.93 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [1]

[edit] Chilean edits

Hello, Pollinator, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | Talk 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A quick thanks

For your astrophocidal tendencies. --Ginkgo100talk 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short Hills Bench

I found your name in the edit history for the Niagara Escarpment article. Would you cleanup this article after the initial contributor gets done with creating it? It is in poor shape, and I am not qualified to do it. Thanks & Cheers! Royalbroil T : C 21:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Jesamine9493.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jesamine9493.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serpent Mound Image

Hi, I noticed you are the contributor of the main image in the Serpent Mound article. This image looks like a photo-manipulation. It is far too green and far over saturated. Can you check to ensure the version you uploaded is not a photo-manip and is in fact authentically what was recorded by your camera or that your camera was not in a setting to record a very saturated picture. I live in Ohio and it is defnly not this green ;) Perhaps you have a problem with the color profile calibration in your monitor?

If you don't have a more natural representation of the Serpent Mound, I can donate one of mine. Nature is beautiful, just as olive and drab as it really is. I think making it greener just makes it look false, not more esthetic. John187 20:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the photo is not manipulated in any way. It was a crisp, clear day with very low humidity, which made the images vivid. It was only cropped slightly and resized. I think the criticism is grossly unjustified, and therefore somewhat insulting. If you want to add a drab image from a blah day, please feel free, but I defend this photo as accurate.
By the way, when you add a comment on a user talk page, please put it at the bottom. Pollinator 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

I don't understand your rationale of "cleanup" by eliminating the link to the main article in Mexico Languages of Mexico. --theDúnadan 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If I did, it wasn't intentional. There was an edit conflict. Sorry. Pollinator 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with grammar corrections here and there, but deleting pictures (soccer stadium) and sourced information (GDP according to CIA) doesn't seem justifiable as mere "cleanup". In spite of your amazing history of constructive contributions I am tempted to revert at least these two particular changes. If, there is a rule in Wikipedia of which I am unaware pertaining to the "clenaup" of articles, then please let me know. --theDúnadan 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I just added back the link you requested. as well as fix an error. The others all are due to the edit conflict, I think. I didn't intentionally do any of them. Because of the edit conflict, I had to do some cutting and pasting, which, I guess is error prone. Please go ahead and fix them, if you wish. If not, I'll try to do it. Pollinator 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Thanks for clarifying. --theDúnadan 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the commercial links on the "Skopelos". They bothered me for "unencyclopedianess" so I'm glad they're gone. I would have removed them myself but I wasn't sure on what grounds. Now I know.Skopelos-Slim 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] callery pear discussion continued

saw this from a friend of mine from the NY Times. it goes directly to the point i was illustrating about unsourced tags. it allows for no further verification of any of the claims on that page: February 21, 2007 A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source By NOAM COHEN

When half a dozen students in Neil Waters's Japanese history class at Middlebury College asserted on exams that the Jesuits supported the Shimabara Rebellion in 17th-century Japan, he knew something was wrong. The Jesuits were in "no position to aid a revolution," he said; the few of them in Japan were in hiding.

He figured out the problem soon enough. The obscure, though incorrect, information was from Wikipedia, the collaborative online encyclopedia, and the students had picked it up cramming for his exam.

Dr. Waters and other professors in the history department had begun noticing about a year ago that students were citing Wikipedia as a source in their papers. When confronted, many would say that their high school teachers had allowed the practice.

But the errors on the Japanese history test last semester were the last straw. At Dr. Waters's urging, the Middlebury history department notified its students this month that Wikipedia could not be cited in papers or exams, and that students could not "point to Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to escape the consequences of errors."

With the move, Middlebury, in Vermont, jumped into a growing debate within journalism, the law and academia over what respect, if any, to give Wikipedia articles, written by hundreds of volunteers and subject to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Wikipedia itself has restricted the editing of some subjects, mostly because of repeated vandalism or disputes over what should be said.

Although Middlebury's history department has banned Wikipedia in citations, it has not banned its use. Don Wyatt, the chairman of the department, said a total ban on Wikipedia would have been impractical, not to mention close-minded, because Wikipedia is simply too handy to expect students never to consult it.

At Middlebury, a discussion about the new policy is scheduled on campus on Monday, with speakers poised to defend and criticize using the site in research.

Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and chairman emeritus of its foundation, said of the Middlebury policy, "I don't consider it as a negative thing at all."

He continued: "Basically, they are recommending exactly what we suggested — students shouldn't be citing encyclopedias. I would hope they wouldn't be citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, either.

"If they had put out a statement not to read Wikipedia at all, I would be laughing. They might as well say don't listen to rock 'n' roll either."

Indeed, the English-language version of the site had an estimated 38 million users in the United States in December, and can be hard to avoid while on the Internet. Google searches on such diverse subjects as historical figures like Confucius and concepts like torture give the Wikipedia entry the first listing.

In some colleges, it has become common for professors to assign students to create work that appears on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's list of school and university projects, this spring the University of East Anglia in England and Oberlin College in Ohio will have students edit articles on topics being taught in courses on the Middle East and ancient Rome.

In December 2005, a Columbia professor, Henry Smith, had the graduate students in his seminar create a Japanese bibliography project, posted on Wikipedia, to describe and analyze resources like libraries, reference books and newspapers. With 16 contributors, including the professor, the project comprises dozens of articles, including 13 on different Japanese dictionaries and encyclopedias.

In evaluations after the class, the students said that creating an encyclopedia taught them discipline in writing and put them in contact with experts who improved their work and whom, in some cases, they were later able to interview.

"Most were positive about the experience, especially the training in writing encyclopedia articles, which all of them came to realize is not an easy matter," Professor Smith wrote in an e-mail message. "Many also retained their initial ambivalence about Wikipedia itself."

The discussion raised by the Middlebury policy has been covered by student newspapers at the University of Pennsylvania and Tufts, among others. The Middlebury Campus, the student weekly, included an opinion article last week by Chandler Koglmeier that accused the history department of introducing "the beginnings of censorship."

Other students call the move unnecessary. Keith Williams, a senior majoring in economics, said students "understand that Wikipedia is not a responsible source, that it hasn't been thoroughly vetted." Yet he said, "I personally use it all the time."

Jason Mittell, an assistant professor of American studies and film and media culture at Middlebury, said he planned to take the pro-Wikipedia side in the campus debate. "The message that is being sent is that ultimately they see it as a threat to traditional knowledge," he said. "I see it as an opportunity. What does that mean for traditional scholarship? Does traditional scholarship lose value?"

For his course "Media Technology and Cultural Change," which began this month, Professor Mittell said he would require his students to create a Wikipedia entry as well as post a video on YouTube, create a podcast and produce a blog for the course.

Another Middlebury professor, Thomas Beyer, of the Russian department, said, "I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone citing an encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against using it as a starting point."

And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as supporting the Shimabara Rebellion. Vargob 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Trip

How is it that you can justify erasing links that are important to a particular town, when you do not live in this town and cannot know the impact of what this particular link means, nor it's importance in recognizing certain places of interest within the town?

I think you need to get off your high horse and allow one little link to escape your desire to hit your precious delete key. It is powertripping editors like you that keep articles bare and underwhelming.

We have had several people contribute the link, only for you to arbitrarily delete it. Obviously we feel it is important to the town as well as awareness within it. (Edit by 198.22.123.105 - Please sign your edits and place at the end of the talk page Pollinator 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Stop it

Seriously, you are lying when you said I have made no attempt to justify my inclusion of a link on the Spartanburg page. Plain out lying. Look at my talk page, look at Spartanburg's talk page. Several people have contributed the link, only to have you remove it. Seems like you are violating the 3 revert rule and contributing to an edit war, not to mention letting your own selfishness dictate what you think does and doesn't belong to an article.

There are many of these types of photo archive external links on Wiki articles about cities, towns, etc. There is no self-promotion, no submission of the link by any owners of the website, and they provide valuable info about the cities.

SINCE YOU DO NOT LIVE HERE, you have NO IDEA the impact these pictures have had on the town and its citizens. It has brought about awareness and attention to certain areas people knew nothing about before, and has even contributed to the contents of the Spartanburg Wiki article, as many of the places are featured in the photo archive provided as an external link. --Darklight1138 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, you have no idea whether I live here or not, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is Wikipedia policy. Railing at me does not qualify as an attempt to gain consensus. And the proper place to do so is on the Spartanburg talk page.
You should realize (as a newbie here) that I have repeately given you opportunity to make your case (hopefully in a civil manner). I could have blocked you for 3 reverts, or for replacing a link identified as spam, without justifying it and gaining consensus, or for your personal attacks. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. And the link referenced is cute, of course, but not encyclopedic.
Furthermore "several people" includes a couple anonymous editors (which proves nothing), and one account that has made only two edits - to the Slobot page and to the Spartanburg page. This gives the appearance of a sock puppet here. Is it? Pollinator 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have made my case...several times. Go to the New York wiki article. At the bottom is basically the same thing; a collection of photos of various points of interest about the area. So why does that exist and you continually erase a link provided by several editors, NOT SOCK PUPPETS? And with the whole "sock puppet" claim, why are you hardcore editors so prone to assumption? That's a terrible quality to have when dealing with what people think is important to content.
Obviously there is a plurality to the opinion that the link belongs. And there is your sole opinion that it doesn't. Sounds like consensus to me. At it looks to me you yourself are in violation of the '3 revert rule', or does it not apply to people like you?
The link provides an archive to pictures posted on the Herald-Journal's official online site. These pictures show different areas of Spartanburg that can appeal to both residents and outsiders who wish to visit these places. It is not a personal website nor a source of income (therefore, the whole self-promotion assumption is rubbish), and it certainly is not spam (which seems like yet another poor and outright wrong opinion).
It also serves as a photo reference to many of the points brought up in the actual Wiki article. The Chapman Cultural Center, The Showroom, Glendale Mills, Lawson's Fork Creek... All of these are featured in many pictures provided by the external link. There isn't much in terms of online content in relation to Spartanburg, so any kind of sites that can provide content is a welcome thing, not a hinderance.
I know it isn't Wiki policy for you to justify its deletion (which is a serious policy flaw), but can you honestly say why the link does not belong there? It IS relevant that you do not live here; how can you say how relevant and beneficial the site is towards awareness of the areas of interest within Spartanburg? --Darklight1138 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Need your Help

Hi, my name is Sandy. I work at the Wikimedia Foundation. There is a reporter that would like to talk to active wikipedians in South Carolina. Do you think you could help out? Please email me when you get a chance. My email is sordonez@wikimedia.org. Thanks, Sandy

[edit] Featured picture candidates

Could you please vote in my image?

--Ricardo Ramírez 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black bear track?

Dave,

I noticed your photo of a bear track on the black bear article. Having seen literally hundreds of bear tracks, my wife and I think that your picture does not look at all like a bear track. If it is one, it is very atypical--either it slipped in the mud, or it is something different, something with longer toes (racoon?). What were the circumstances of the photo? If you say it was a bear track I will believe you, but I'm wondering if a different picture wouldn't be better. I don't guarantee I'll be quick about it, but I can get one of our track photos scanned in--something more typical. In fact, I might get inspired to scan photos of scat, cubs, claw marks on trees, torn-open logs, etc. (we spent several years involved with black bear studies). Hopefully I do not sound too critical of your photo. Just glancing at all you do on Wikipedia, I must say it is very impressive. Folks like you are behind the greatness of this site. Provophys 08:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense edits, muchly sorry

Extremely extreme apologies. I've been assessing articles in various projects, and obviously got a little mixed up. Normally I can multi-task better than that. Thanks for the notification; I'll be more careful in the future. --Ebyabe 15:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wasp

Hi Pollinator.

Just to let you know the duplicate linkmania on wasps won't be long lived. I've literally just doubled the article in size and i'm not working my way back through it to clear up the new stuff. Sorry for the excessive linking but its where old stuff has been linked then I've added new stuff and linked it in. Will sort it out as I'm cleaning up the article. I'm trying to push it towards g.a. or even f.a. status as I think it really has the potential. Any help you can offer is greatly appreaciated. Thanks. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honey Bee vs Hoverfly

Thank you for correcting about Image:Honey bee on purple flower.jpg, now called Image:Syrphid fly on Virginia Bluebells.jpg. I guess I was just as fooled as any predator looking at it. I looked at the Honey Bee images and they looked very similar, but looking at the Hoverfly images I see how I made my mistake. How do you tell the difference? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. Different legs, wings, eyes, antenna. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Inappropriate Links"

Just prior to posting this, I found a message from you, "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia.". I tried to email a response, but--though I have an email address in my profile--WP seems not to want to send it. I don't want eat space here discussing it, but would appreciate an email from you with a response address so that I can make my case off WP space. I am at email@owlcroft.com (and, of course, believe the links to be appropriate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlcroft (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Shenme 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to make the same response on their user talk page as I did an hour ago at someone else's. Off-Wikipedia is not appropriate because any 'evidence' needs to be visible to any editor, now and in the future. Space on Wikipedia is expressly for discussing issues at Wikipedia. Shenme 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Very well, then.
The links I added were one link each to WP pages on certain vegetables, and the links were to pages I maintain on a non-commercial site dedicated to home-garden growing of vegetables, herbs, and fruits; each linked page is wholly about the corresponding vegetable, and includes not only pretty comprehensive information about growing that vegetable, and some background biology and history of the vegetable, but--and this is the unique focus of the site--more or less (depending on the particular vegetable) extensive discussion of the best-tasting cultivars for the home gardener, whose concerns are very different from those of commercial growers.
If one examines the WP:EL (Wikipedia criteria for External Links), one finds the following here-relevant material:
What should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail . . . or other reasons." [emphasis added] An extensive treatise on selecting varieties of and planting and growing a particular vegetable qualifies, I daresay, as material that cannot be integrated into the article owing to amount of detail.
What should not be linked: There are 13 criteria, and I will not rehearse them all here. The only ones that I can conceive anyone even remotely thinking salient are #3, "Links mainly intended to promote a website", and #4, "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". Taking last first, anyone who visits the site (growingtaste.com) can, I think, see that it is not primarily (or secondarily) to sell anything; there is an associated Amazon bookshop on the site, and some small AdSense ads, but I really think no one visiting any of the linked pages could rationally say they are there to sell anything. As to #3, again I put it to anyone who wants to visit first the WP page on some vegetable--say Beets, WP--and then visit the page I had linked (the links have been removed, I presume by Pollinator), in that case [Beets, external site], and see for yourself whether or not the link is relevant to the WP page or is "mainly to promote" the website. And, as everyone knows, External Links are all nofollow'ed anyway. (Or select any common vegetable you want and make the same comparison.)
It was my intent, now that the 2007 updates are all done, to add a link for each detail page I have to the WP page for the corresponding vegetable, herb, or fruit (assuming I don't find a reasonably equivalent link, which I never have). I may add that so far as I got before Pollinator exercised his veto, I saw no other links to articles on selecting and growing cultivars of the vegetable in question.
If I am astray here, I would be interested in knowing exactly how, with reference to particular points in the WP:EL. I need to know whether I will be able to re-insert the links without raising anyone's hackles.
I have worked long and hard on that site--just about every page is the product of literally tens of hours spent reviewing material on the subject vegetable, and in composing the text--and have to do a lot of it all anew every season as new cultivars become available (or disappear); it would be nice to think that the end results are things people with an interest home-growing in this or that vegetable can readily find. ("Gardening is the # 1 hobby in the United States.")

Eric Walker 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding links to multiple pages is one of the identifying characteristics of spammers (not to speak of the ads on your page). It would be a rare case where multiple links would be allowed by the spam patrol. Pick ONE page you wish to link to and make your case on that page's talk. It might be a good idea to note this and link to your request at Wikipedia talk:Spam. If you can convince and get an administrator to add your link, I won't remove it. But if you try adding multiple links again, you'll likely get blocked by one of the spam patrol. Pollinator 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So far as I can see, the objections boil down to these two propositions:
1. No site can have more than one page that any WP article or articles could legitimately have reason to include as an External Link.
2. Any page containing a Google adsense insert is perforce a page existing primarily to sell things.
When the actual positions are set out clearly and honestly like that--let me phrase this as delicately as I can--certain deficiencies in the argument seem to manifest themselves.
Consider #1: any one WP page can and should link (if at all) only once to any particular external site; that is clear and unquestioned. But that different particular WP articles cannot--as a supposed matter of general principle--each have valid reasons to link to some one different page of a large, diverse web site is a strange concept. A site on pets with a long page on dogs, another long page on cats, and a third long page on parrots--such a site can only ever be linked from one WP page? Which one? Why that one? Why none of the others? If all such pages were simply made into separate sites--a dog site, a cat site, a parrot site--would the individual WP page links to the new dog site, the cat site, the parrot site, and so then be ok? Apparently so. But how does that differ in any meaningful way from the actual situation?
Repetition apparently being necessary here, let me again set forth the substance, in nearly the exact words, of what WP:EL so clearly says on the matter: an External Link is appropriate if 1) it contains neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, 2) is not present mainly to promote a website, and 3) does not lead to a site that primarily exists to sell products or services. Simple as 1-2-3.
Now what are we to take the meanings of the WP:EL words mainly and primarily to be? Is there any reason to suppose they are not what any desk dictionary supplies for them? Google's own policies require that adsense not be placed on any page whose main purpose is to present the ads, and I daresay they police their policies at least as well as any "spam patrol" polices WP. To determine whether a particular page exists "primarily" to sell things, via adsense or otherwise, all that is needed is to take a look at the actual page; if it is useful and relevant, then it is useful and relevant, and the adsense insert is immaterial. (If it is not, register a complaint with Google, who will soon enough settle that site's hash.)
While we're quoting actual policy, since Wikipedia:Spam was mentioned, let's repeat what it says about External Links; in fact, it essentially repeats WP:EL, to wit: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." That is all it says that is remotely pertinent here.
My guess is that the "spam patrol" has not, in fact, looked at any of the link pages in question. I cannot dream how anyone who had would not agree that the individual pages, each dedicated to a particular vegetable or fruit, are each appropriate to a WP article on the corresponding vegetable or fruit. If there is a question of their usefulness, or the accuracy of the material, or any content-related matter, fine: I would be happy to discuss those things. But a blanket claim that all pages--those or any others from anywhere else--are disqualified merely by the presence of adsense on them is a private conception, not WP policy.
I ask again for you to please look at the site, and/or any of the individual pages at issue here, consider the words of WP:EL and Wikipedia:Spam, and then state your exact WP-policy-based objections, if any remain, to the proposed links.
It can be reliably shown that virtually all spammers eat bread, often just hours before spamming; moreover, the great majority have noses. That does not make everyone with a nose who eats bread a spammer, ok?
Let me finish by noting that the one poor devil whose interests seem never to be discussed or considered in these sorts of discussions is the WP user. The first and foremost question that should be in the mind of anyone who creates or edits a WP page is "What is the typical visitor likely to be coming here in search of?" WP is not a playing field for The Bold and Pure Knights of Castle Niggle to tourney upon: it is a resource for the general public, one whose goal is (or is supposed to be) to assist and inform that public. What is the typical visitor to an article on carrots likely to be looking for? It could be any of several things: what, in general, is a carrot? What is the botanical status of carrots? How are carrots used? Where can they be grown and where are they grown? What is their economic and social history? How can they be eaten? And, yes, how might one grow them in a home vegetable garden? No one article on carrots can--or should--answer all those questions in great depth. A WP article should try to touch on each of them, then give links to various pages that answer the individual questions in greater depth. If such a page exists within WP, it would be the first choice, if it is at a suitable depth. If there are no good WP pages on a given point, then an external page is linked, provided it answers the corresponding question at some depth and is not in some way offensive. The End.
Eric Walker 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What about my suggestions? Have you tried them? Note that adding your site to multiple pages is one of the quickest ways to alert the spam patrol. "...a spammer will often add the same link to multiple articles. This is often confirmation that the user is not editing in good faith." If you are editing in good faith, you may also wish to spend some time perusing Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam.
Also note that ads such as your bookstore and the Google ads count against you. There are some links on Wikipedia to sites that have Google ads, to be sure, but when evaluated as spam, the ads can tip the scales against a page when there is any question. Please don't bother to try to convince me. Actually I've looked at your pages extensivly and though fairly good, there was too much weight against them in terms of your ads and bookstore, and your multiple listing. I've made my judgement. You now have to convince the community, which is not impossible - and if you do, I will happy to abide by it. But you would be wise to start with the suggestions I made, and not argue your case here where few will see it. Pollinator 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, hello--is anyone listening?
Quote: "...a spammer will often add the same link to multiple articles" THIS ISN'T THE SAME LINK! Sorry to shout, but apparently conversational tones are not being heard. I was posting a different page link at each WP page. The WP page on carrots was linked to a page on selecting flavorsome carrot cultivars and growing them; the WP page on beets was linked to a page on selecting the best beet cultivar and growing it.
This is delightful: there was too much weight against them in terms of your ads and bookstore, and your multiple listing. The "multiple listing", of course, has nothing to do with the pages themselves. The bookstore is related to the pages only in that every site page has a site directory; the ads--well, we have rehearsed that more than enough.
"I've made my judgement." In other words, you will take it on yourself to censor all links to a "fairly good" site owing to personal bias (I say "bias" advisedly, since you still, after all these explicit requests, have yet to demonstrate how your personal preferences are to be supposed to comport with the published Wikipedia standards).
"You now have to convince the community...." OK, if I find enough spare time, I will post advisory requests on the various Talk pages. But that one peckinsniff can oblige a good netizen to go through that trouble 87 times (48 vegetables, 27 herbs, and 12 fruits) shows clearly what is wrong these days with Wikipedia, which is now acquiring the same effluvium that has so long wafted over from dmoz: the elevation of power games over the needs of the user. No wonder [Citizendium] has come into being.
(Actually, I exaggerate: many links have long been in place on the corresponding WP pages, and no one has had any problem with them; but I suppose the sheriff's posse will now ride down and root those out, too. I really think these sorts of folk will never be happy till External Links are flat-out banned from WP. "The perfect bureaucracy administers nothing but itself.")
I am not the loser here; the visitors to Wikipedia pages on vegetables, herbs, and fruits who are looking for home-gardening information are. How big their loss is a matter of judgement on the merits of the pages, which is not for me to comment on; but if they are unsatisfactory, then someone should put up links to some better external pages on the same topic. Not having these links up costs me nothing, in any sense, and having them up would gain me nothing save perhaps some pleasant feelings of having been useful. And we can't be having with that.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlcroft (talk • contribs) 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Sigh! You try to help someone and all they do is get into a snit. Listen, there are many other editors who will remove your links as quickly as I did. The fact that there are such links on some pages doesn't mean a thing - they are also subjec to periodic review. You can neither bully your way in, nor play martyr to get in. But I gave you some suggestions - which is to say that I thought your pages have some merit. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Get over it. Pollinator 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. You try to explain something to someone, quoting the exact words of official WP policy, and all he does is get into a snit. The first thing I did in my first post was quote posted WP policy, in its original words. After all these exchanges, I have yet to see any references to that policy or those words save as I make them; all I have seen is one individual's determination that WP will be what he says and wants. If the determination were to enforce WP policy, that would be acceptable behavior; subject to discussion on the applicability, perhaps, but nothing any reasonable person could object to. But objurgations derived from personal taste, even--or especially--when that taste is idiosyncratic and does not comport with WP theory or practice, is another matter.
I am going to put the links back, one by one, over a period of time (perhaps one a day, maybe two), with, in each case, a note on the corresponding Talk page; let us see if anyone else has problems with them. I note in a quick review of the pages for the vegetables at issue that for many, possibly most, the External Links section is a messy hodge-podge of often marginally relevant pages, many with lots of blatant sales pitches on them. I will try to clean some of those things up as I go along. If I do, I will do so by applying established WP policy, not non-policy whims.
Eric Walker 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Good luck. Maybe you'll get lucky. But you may wish to have a look at User talk:Cmgunn to see the end result of one user who persisted in adding his/her own page links. Pollinator 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Eric, I've purposely kept my hands off your edits, despite your defiant response that you would continue (above). You would not follow my suggestion to get the consensus FIRST on the talk page -- and you ran into trouble right away. You are on the verge of a permanant ban (nothing I had anything to do with); the question is: will you learn that friendly advice from an experienced Wikipedian might be helpful, or will you continue to your own destruction here? Sad. Pollinator 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larger version of Aphids1533.JPG?

Do you have a larger version of Aphids1533.JPG? I wanted to nominate it for FP here or for QI on Commons, but it's too small for either. Could you upload a full-resolution copy? grendel|khan 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I do. The picture was added back in the days when Wikipedia wanted ones no larger than 300 pixels wide. I'll look back through my files to see if I can find it. Pollinator 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] honey bees and cotton pollination

Hi. Much as I hate to disagree with a colleague I respect, none of the literature I have on hand indicates that honey bees will collect cotton pollen unless there is absolutely nothing else available. For example, the "Bible" of crop pollination, USDA Agriculture Handbook #496 ("Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants"), is quite explicit: "When a honey bee enters a cotton flower, it may emerge coated with pollen, then alight on a leaf, and comb much of the pollen off without attempting to pack it in the pollen baskets on the hind legs." and goes on to state "At times, honey bees collect small amounts of cotton pollen and transport it to the hive. This usually occurs only when no other pollen is available for the bees. Minkov (1956) concluded that honey bees can collect pollen but seldom do so."

The point is that simply because the bees are pollinating the flowers does not imply that the bees are actually using the pollen as a food resource. If you have some published citations that indicate that bees will store significant amounts of cotton pollen in the hive, then by all means, insert them in the article, but until then, I'm going to restore the text pretty much as it was - under all but exceptional circumstances, honey bees do not use cotton pollen as food. Unsigned comment by User:Dyanega

Well, unfortunately I cannot provide a citation. I agree that cotton pollen is very low-grade and is not a preferred food for the bees. And I have seen both honey bees and bumblebees combing off pollen, when they were so thickly coated that you wondered if they did it simply so they could fly. But I have worked bees in cotton country for many years and use the returning bees with cotton pollen pellets as indicator of the times that bees are actually working cotton. It's hard to believe, even if they throw out some, that some pollen is not added to the mix in the combs. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of pesticide poisonings from cotton, and the pollen is apt to be the primary means of conduct of the insecticide - at least the part you see at the hives. Bees that are poisoned by contact or nectar contamination don't make it back to the hive. I've seen them in the rows between the plants as well - it depends a lot on the type of insecticide and mode of operation. Pollinator 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidently, I have not personally seen the slightest shred of evidence that Bt cotton poses any risks. For years, as much as possible (not entirely possible when it's all through the area) I've tried to keep bees away from cotton, because of poisonings and lack of enforcement of label directions to protect bees. As the GM cotton came in, the difference was remarkable. Previously hives would at least be greatly weakened and unproductive - now they usually remain strong and can even make a fair amount of nice quality honey from cotton. There is still usually one or two sprays that can do little, or a lot of damage, depending mostly on the time of application. But it used to be a spray every week, and much of it during the hours that the bees were most active. Pollinator 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/User_talk%7EPollinator_d503.html"