User talk:Rkitko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Greystone

Hey, nice job on Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital. I'll hopefully be adding some stuff but will certainly build around your paragraphs. JDG 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for noticing

I had a tussle with an admin who turned out to be a bit off his rocker. Once that was established I felt ok about coming back. I hope to add a few tidbits to the Greystone article, even though really it lacks nothing. JDG 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Black

Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. 24.165.116.230 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(I left the following message for the user who left this message for me on their talkpage)
I re-removed the linkspam put there by Sox First to a blog article on that user's webpage for the following reasons: 1) Blogs are generally to be avoided as external links (See: Wikipedia: Links to normally avoid (#10); and 2) It could also be considered vanity link because the user linked to their own website--this is also to be generally avoided. Thanks for your concern. --Rkitko 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Broom

Please don't move this again. Doing so is very offensive - in Scotland, the term 'scotch' used in that sense has much the same connotations as the term 'nigger' does in the US (and for broadly similar reasons). The reason the google count for 'common broom' is relatively low is that the species is generally known as simply 'broom', but that doesn't distinguish it well from other species of broom. - thanks, MPF 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My reply, which can be found on Talk: Common Broom
I won't move it back immediately because I don't want to get into a revert war, but please explain your rationale more carefully using Wikipedia policy. Instead of accusing me of unfairly representing US interests, please review WP:NC(CN). I see no mention of imperialism. I'm also unfamiliar with the policy that states offensive article titles (to some) are to be avoided (personally, I think words have no meaning. Intent to offend behind a word is what has greater meaning. And of course no offense is meant here. I digress). From what I've read, the common name of this species is Scotch Broom. If you can provide a source that notes that simply "Broom" is the most common name of all, then I will have to re-examine my position. But for now, you can't simply change article names based on an unsourced opinion that it offends someone. Have you gone and moved Scotch whisky yet? Instead of reverting immediately, I would have liked the opportunity to respond in this manner before such a decision was made, just as I allowed ample time for anyone watching this page to respond. Thanks. --Rkitko 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Technosphere3.jpg

Those are good, thanks. Sorry about tagging them right after you uploaded them. --Rory096 04:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time I say thanks.

I "borrowed" your little box on your page with your photo (but obviously changed it) etc because I was clueless at the time. I am now thanking you. Indeed. tyx

[edit] Photo attribution

Sorry for not noticing that your license requires attribution! Maybe you could change the link from a User link to external format, Ryan D. Kitko, but that is just an idea that maybe only I have, I don't even know if there's any convention. A reader might expect an encyclopedia article on you instead of your user page when clicking the link. It also wouldn't show up Special:CrossNamespaceLinks, which is how I found it. Feel free to disregard this idea if you don't like it, as in any case I'll make sure to check attribution requirements from now on! Thank you kindly, and sorry again. --Gnewf 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book-Cadillac Hotel

Ahh! thank you! i'm sorry about putting in the wrong date. I was just going with what official information i had. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"all these beautiful pages"? why thank you! i'm just trying to fill in gaps of wikipedia's buildings section. For the two categories, i thought they were fitting....but i don't know what they exactly do. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tree of Heaven

Hi Rkitko - there's no rules on if or when they should be used (other than that short articles should avoid using excessive numbers of headers; my interpretation of this is to aim for an average of not less than 20 lines per header over the length of a page, i.e. a 60 line page only merits 3 headers). On the Tree of Heaven page, I stuck 'notoc' in after the preview showed the page as looking rather badly designed with it in; if you think it is better with the toc, remove it if you like. - MPF 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Done with the speedy :-) Feel free to come by my talk page if there are other cleanup things I can do for you anytime. --HappyCamper 20:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triggerplants

Hello Rtkitko, at the CP-project-page I saw you are especially interested in Stylidium. A friend of mine brought some seeds from Australia and grew wonderful plants of it, but couldn't determine them exactly. Would be able and so kind to do that? This would be fantastic. Regards, Denisoliver 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Hi Rkitko - it's been discussed on numerous occasions in the WP:TOL talk archives; take a look through. Generally, there has been a small majority in favour of caps for various practical reasons, e.g. a wild cherry (any species of Prunus growing in its natural environment) is not necessarily the same as a Wild Cherry (the common name of the particular species Prunus avium). Also, please, whatever you want to do, it is not a good idea to subdivide species into two different groups based on the (often very obscure) etymology of the name (e.g. is Pohutukawa a proper name? Do you know the Maori etymology?? I don't!). As for what tradition it follows - you'll find that most field guides use caps for plant (and other living things) names (and have done so for a long time, e.g. Preston's (1948) North American Trees). - MPF 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Common name capitalization (article titles and in text) --Rkitko 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common names

Hi Rkitko--I've just looked over your edit history and see you've tangled with MPF over common names in the past. Let me say upfront that I agree with MPF on one major point: that articles about plant genera and species should appear under the botanical name, and never under a common name, in part because of such disputes. But beyond that, I have had several disagreements with MPF regarding the inclusion of common names within the articles and I consider the claims of "cultural imperialism" to be mostly hogwash (and quite moot anyway as long as the botanical name is the article title). I don't buy into the claim that any one group--Americans, Europeans, Australians, whomever--has any claim over a particular common name, regardless of the origin of the plant. As long as the names exist and have any kind of widespread or common usage in English-speaking regions, they should be included without editorial comments except to note which names are in use, to what extent, and in what areas. BTW it's nice to encounter another queer Wikipedian! MrDarwin 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrisburg State Hospital article and citation

Hi Rkitko. I included the entire citation from the Historic Asylums website in the Harrisburg State Hospital because sometimes it just isn't enough to have the external link to it ! To wit, (1) when the site goes away, and (2) the timeouts are too long. At least it would be in-line. Plus it's then IN Wikipedia, solidly. I favour this as opposed to leaving just the citation, depending on the circumstances. One might have to resort to the Internet Wayback Machine [1] to get an old copy of the page for the external link's contents, but even sometimes the Wayback Machine fails with all its terabytes of history. In-article quotations are very useful, too, sometimes. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hello Rkitko. Thanks for your kind reply and insightful thoughts. Your points are very well-taken. I do remember that press release, on paper, floating around about the time the movie "Girl, Interrupted (film)" was previewing with the press kit. There may have been some spelling mis-transcriptions by the editors of "Historic Asylums". But the gist is about the same as what I had read in 1999. Will ponder your points further. Many Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hi Rkitko. I see you've just taken action and removed the large quote from the press release on the movie, in the Girl, Interrupted (film) article as well, albeit belatedly. Looks okay now as well. Let's hope readers actually click on the link to read the information as opposed to having it directly in this article and of course that the website persists with this information ? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

Hi Ryan. Thanks for the kind reply. I am basically in agreement with you and so it goes. As I mentioned before above, The Internet Wayback Machine may come in handy someday with this if the original drops off the radar. It was last archived there in 2005 [2] ... Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)

[edit] Franchising

Hallo - you removed the link to http://www.free-legal-document.com/franchise-consulting.html This page and other pages linked to it deal extensively with franchising. As a franchisee with 6 years experience I feel that I can give valuable information. The pages do not promote any company or affiliate and as such is totally unbiased. Tavernier 07:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LuckyBamboo 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg

Greetings! I wonder if this might be misidentified. I think, contrary to the image description, that this really is Dracaena sanderiana and not D. fragrans 'Stedneri'. Was wondering if you had specific material or sources that identified this particular variety as looking like that. (D. fragrans is much larger and has a much different growth habit from the plant in that photo, in my opinion.) Your thoughts? --Rkitko 07:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. I think you are probably correct, the only info I had to go on was the tag when I bought it that described it as lucky bamboo - unfortunately that doesn't really help with the detail... It wasn't myself who added the Dracaena fragrans 'Stedneri' description. Please feel free to change it - I just don't know enough to say one way or the other. Regards. SeanMack 12:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
On the identity, the previous ident was made by an anon editor here. - MPF 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stylidium papers

Rkitko, I have 16 different papers on Stylidium, consisting of 3 revisions and about 30 descriptions of new species, all by A. Lowrie. Wanna get some work to do :) ? Denisoliver 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

All papers are Word .docs and already published (from 1989 to 2000, mostly from the 2nd half of the nineties). They are rather large, approx. 25 MB altogether. Send me an e-mail through my e-mail account on de and I will reply them one by one. Regards, Denisoliver 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dracaena

Hi Rkitko - the underscore was accidental, I'd not noticed the change (not really sure it is important either, it doesn't affect the appearance of the saved page). On the common names, mainly because there isn't room to have every recorded option in that situation, as they won't all fit on one line; a species list is best just having the single standard common name (or even none), and put the rest on the species page as/when it gets written. On caps, I'm still waiting for someone to produce some reasoned arguments in favour of the lower-case-except-for-proper-nouns style, rather than blind religious dogma . . . "the chicago mos says so, so therefore you must do so" - reminds me of "the holy bible says so, so therefore you must do so". Conversely, there are plenty of good practical reasons why consistent capitalisation is useful, and plenty of historical precedent for its use, too. - MPF 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image release procedure

Checkout WP:ERP - it has the procedure in full (especially regarding posting an email copy of the permission). If they are releasing the images under cc-by-sa it's best to upload them onto the commons (commons.wikimedia.org) that way all the wikipedias can use the images. The template {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} can be overloaded as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5|Megapixie}} to provide accurate attribution. Also the commons upload description template/block is useful for describing the exact circumstances {{Information |Description= |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} Good job finding the images. Let me know if you need anything else. Megapixie 10:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews account

n:User:Rkitko has indicated that they are the same person as you. Just to be safe, can you confirm that here please? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure is. Thanks for checking :-) --Rkitko 03:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nepenthes rajah

Hi. I've been working on the Nepenthes rajah article on and off for a while, but these days I usually make only minor edits. Please feel free to make any changes you wish. I'm unsure about nominating it for FAC, as I think it would fail in its current form simply because it is too long and too detailed. Mgiganteus1 16:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stylidium-photos

Hi Rkitko,

in August I asked you if you could ID some Stylidium-photos. Finally I loaded the photos onto the commons, it would be great, if you could determine them. Thus we can get rid of these botanical drawings only. The seeds of this plant have been collected at Howard Springs, Northern Territory. See the photos here. Regards, Denisoliver 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are excellent! As for identification, I initially thought that it was S. fimbriatum but the growth form is all wrong. I lean more towards S. turbinatum now. See page 215-216 of the "Eight new species of triggerplant (Stylidium: Stylidiaceae) from northern Australia" paper you sent me (Lowrie and Kenneally, Nuytsia, 1997). The growth form matches, the description fits, and the flower form looks like one of a kind. The description also notes that some specimens of this plant were found in Howard Springs. Were the seeds pale orange? I will definitely add those in to the Stylidium article on the en wikipedia. I also wanted to let you know that I'm waiting on some help with identification from the photographer, but I'll be uploading these photos that the photographer has agreed to release under one of the licenses acceptable for the Commons. So we will be able to use those beautiful photos as well. Thanks again for those! And let me know what you think about my tentative identification. Best, --Rkitko 04:06, 27. Dez. 2006 (CET)

[edit] Cooperatives under Tito?

Rkitko :

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

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

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

Rkitko:

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

[edit] Stylidium carnivory

Hi Rkitko,

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Compliance and ethics program

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

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

[edit] Hitachi entries

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

[edit] Invitation!

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

[edit] Hitachi Edits

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

[edit] Commons account

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


[edit] Comment to: Your edits to Corporate social responsibility

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


I'm terribly sorry if the link added was interprated as some sort of promotion for any commercial product, or inappropriate in any way. I will discuss it in the talk pages as you suggested. I just felt I had to give a short explanation: the three part documentary called the Corporation, is perhaps the most comprehensive documentary (and Docu. series ) ever made (on Corporations and their role in society, hence / therefore directly related to their social responsibility in society (cause and effects)). it is currently in the public domain (freely downloadable) and it is not a commercial product as such, even though one is able to buy it ( just as any book referenced as source in any given wiki article. on joining the url/page for the documentary, there is a short flash introduction with voice where the creators authors of the documentary explains that their work is freely downloadable but that they encourage you to support the work, much like amnesty or any other creator of any given freely available work would and does in any other area or line of work. The Corporation analyses thouroughly the modern Corporation and interviews "both sides", with representatives such as Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and many others. I suggest you take the time to at least watch 15 minutes of the documentary, much like you would browse through any book or link given as a source. Sorry to add this but it seems to me and I feel, that much of wikipedia have become overzealous in its attempt to become more narrow and somehow "mainstream" , by refusing anything and everything that isn't as "official" and centrist in much the same way as the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is in my opinion a terrible loss. If I wanted Britannica's conservative comercial POV's I'd buy it. This is not Britannica, and if Wiki is supposed to have any credibility in the future or indeed be of any significant value for future generations it also has to carry dissent from the official, the government version and the "winners" side of the story. Now how one achieves this in a satisfactory way I am not wise enough to suggest, but somehow believeing that a totally centrist "objective" view of the world tells "the truth" is both far from honest or accurate.
Wikipedia itself shows in a very appropriate way that "even" Britannica cannot avoid being biased. (For a better(?) "explanation" of this point see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492)
Well that (this) became a bit long-winded and english is not my mother tongue but perhaps some point gets across even so. Bear with me if you can. There's a lot more ( and a lot more precise things) to be said on the subject, and its an important debate for either side of the political spectrum to be aware of and to try to come to terms with. I feel that in a democratic world and spirit "both"(all three) 'sides' should be granted some space, since it's a fairy tale that some kind of objective centrist truth exists "in the middle". Jürgen Habermas springs to mind now for some reason. Anyhow. that's enough said. For now. Cheers, and dont let yourselves be offended. It's not worth it. Cheers. John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protocarnivorous plant

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

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

[edit] Much appreciated!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Protocarnivorous plant

The Original Barnstar
For your great work on the protocarnivorous plant article and various other CP-related pages I hereby award you the Original Barnstar. And thanks for the other barnstar! :) Mgiganteus1 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my user page

Hey there, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page while I was offline. -Dark Dragon Flame 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Cheers, --Rkitko 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BotanyBot errors

Your bot has been doing a fine job, but recently marked some pages not belonging to WP Plants (ex. Usnea rubicunda and Usnea). Was this intentional? --NoahElhardt 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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


[edit] {C|c}lass

Every single WikiProject uses quality categories of the form Category:FA-Class plant articles (i.e. capital "C" for "Class"), but importance categories of the form Category:Top-importance plant articles (i.e. lower case "i" for "importance") for importance. Ridiculous. WP:PLANTS is the only exception, using lower case for both. Although it is trivially obvious that we are right and everyone else is wrong, I do wonder whether us being different is likely to upset some of the assessment bots. This is just food for thought; no need to respond or leap into action. Hesperian 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, when I was setting up the template, I copied and pasted from so many places I can't remember where the lower-case class categories came from, but at least I was consistent! I did the same with WP:CPS assessment. And looking over this list of articles I see that WP:PLANTS isn't alone. For example: Category:FA-class Munich articles, Category:FA-class Radio articles (why a capital "R" for radio?), and Category:FA-class Italy articles. I don't think the assessment bot has any trouble with case-sensitivity. It seems to be doing a fine job with those WikiProjects and WP:CPS as well as the initial WP:PLANTS. Good eye, though, I never would have seen that! --Rkitko 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Plants article class

I think 3 class should be added for lists: SL (Start/stub/incomplete lists), List (normal lists) and FL (featured list, such as List of basil cultivars). Putting lists (and we ave anumber of them) in article classes is weird. Circeus 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking about that the other day when I came across our that featured list. The assessment bot will, of course, miss those and won't report them on our assessment table, which is probably a good thing since we don't want to inflate the "FA" category with pages that aren't articles. I'll make Category:List plant pages with sub-cats: Category:FL-class plant lists and Category:SL-class plant lists. Lists that aren't featured or stubs will categorize into Category:List plant pages (I see no reason to create a Category:List-class plant lists unless you do. It seems a bit redundant.) Sound good? Thanks for bringing that up! --Rkitko 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "List-class lists" is pretty redundant XD.Circeus 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not rating lists by importance? I would have been inclined to replace Category:List plant pages by Category:Plant lists by quality and Category:Plants lists by importance. Hesperian 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Another excellent point! I hadn't considered that this morning before I had my coffee. I suppose I'll have to create {{Top-L-importance}}, {{High-L-importance}}, etc. (L for "list") in the main template space (i.e. {{Top-importance}}). Do you see any problem with doing that for use on only one WikiProject? I haven't created many templates, so I'm not aware of naming conventions or deletion policies. Those are my only concerns. Otherwise it's a great idea, although some may argue it adds unnecessary complexity to the project banner. We do have so many lists in our project, though! It could definitely be used. --Rkitko 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do you want {{Top-L-importance}}? {{Top-importance}} doesn't categorise - it merely produces a pretty coloured box with the word "Top" in it. Unless you're determined to make Top-class lists show as a different colour to Top-class articles, you should be able to use {{Top-importance}} for both. Hesperian 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't figure out a way in the syntax of the template to rate a list as "Top" without it categorizing it into Category:Top-importance plant articles. Is there a way?
Using {{WikiProject Plants|importance=Top}} will use Template:Top-importance but it will also recognize and categorize it into Category:Top-importance plant articles. If you use different syntax, such as {{WikiProject Plants|importance=Top-L}}, the template as it's currently set up will try to use Template:Top-L-importance for the colored notice on the left hand side of the template and can be told to categorize it under Category:Top-importance plant lists. Is there some way to use a "list=yes" parameter to shift the way the template recognizes the "Top" parameter so it will still use Template:Top-importance but use a different category? I'm at a loss, but I'll keep tinkering with it in User:Rkitko/sandbox5 to see what I can do. --Rkitko 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this can be done. I'm no expert on template coding but I'll figure it out eventually. Meanwhile, you can solve your problem by turning Template:Top-L-importance into a redirect to Template:Top-importance. Hesperian 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, with the "list=yes" parameter, I can only get it to add the "Top-importance plant lists" category. Can't figure out a way to remove the "Top-importance plant articles" category. See User talk:Rkitko/sandbox for the example. I'm no expert in template coding either, but I can look at an example of one working and cobble together one for my own purposes. Know of any WikiProjects that sort their lists by importance and quality? --Rkitko 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
<--
Can you nest switches? You need something like
{{#switch: {{{list}}}
|yes|Yes|=        {{#switch: {{{importance}}}
                  |top|TOP=[[Category:FA-class plant lists]]
                  ...
                  }}
|no|No|#default=  {{#switch: {{{importance}}}
                  |top|TOP=[[Category:FA-class plant articles]]
                  ...
                  }}
}}
Hesperian 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Okay. I still think Category:List plant pages should be named Category:Plant lists by quality for consistency's sake. Hesperian 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give up (for now). Still bugs me that I can't figure out how to do it. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow with fresh eyes. I'll update the template to reflect the change for consistency. Thanks for all your help today! --Rkitko 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santonin

The article santonin is most certainly not within the scope of WikiProject Plants. Please check your bot edits for other mistakes. Thanks, Cacycle 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] UglyRipe & Grape Tomato

Hi Rkitko, I wanted to see if you could help me with these articles (for selfish reasons :-)). I don't know if you can help so sorry if I am in the wrong place. These entries need to be more objective and have some citing. I am a bit green :-) to this but believe that this material is notable and encyclpopedic. Any thoughts?--Agrofe 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Subproject banners

I had sort-of suspected it, but not really noticed it until I was done with the GA stuff. Is the automatic downgrading of articles revertable? Because in a few case, we might want to have the same importanc. Circeus 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

See {{WP Banksia}} [3] and Talk:Banksia epica [4]. Looks pretty good, if we do say so ourselves, huh?

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

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

Hesperian 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark etiquette

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

[edit] Durio kutejensis

Hi, Durio kutejensis was a stub article and it didn't tell much more about the species than what is told on List of Durio species (if I recall correctly), hence the merging. If you see some possibility for expansion, you are more than welcome to revert my redirecting. Thanks for the compliment on Durian. --BorgQueen 06:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are willing to take up all the hard work, I don't see why not. :-D --BorgQueen 07:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I was looking around on Wikipedia:Featured lists, and it seems that most, if not all, of them have a short description for each species. See List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain or List of basil cultivars, for example. --BorgQueen 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors in the wind...

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

[edit] STOP EDITING THE CB WEST PAGE

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

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

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

[edit] Durian FAC

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

[edit] User:BotanyBot/sandbox2

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

[edit] Happy birthday!

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

[edit] Agreed

Agree, See Detroit website began as mainly photographs,its seems to have become more commerical. It was moved to Michigan Central Station because its photo value is mainly that now. Agee the website is no longer of value. Thomas Paine1776 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janis Ian

Thx for catching the edit so quickly. I like how we keep on top of things. I do believe, however, that the link you made is not the best choice.

The reason I linked to a category is that if you look at the Music history article to which you linked, it currently only goes to 1950, which is one year before Janis was even born. If you look at the History of music article, linked to from the Music history page, it is concerned with music history prior to Janis Ian, with the exception of the 20th century music link.

The 20th century link, while encompassing the times of some of Janis' contributions to music history, deals with ONLY contemporary music, and not the totality of music history.

The sentence in which the link appears deals with contemporary music since the existence of the Grammies, so it could be argued that the 20th century link would be appropriate.

However, it is my opinion that the 'Grammy' time frame can be deduced by clicking on the existing Grammy Hall of Fame. This link, although it doesn't link directly to the Hall of Fame, does provide access to Hall of Fame article and the Grammy article, from which the time frame is referenced.

BUT the link in question is simply for 'music history,' in a sentence dealing with the time period from 1972/1973 to present, therefore a link to the Music history category is best suited since it reflects the actual text of the link (music history), and from its contents, one can find the time frame within the context of the sentence in which the link is made. If there is another solution, I do not currently know.

I think there should be more work done within the music category. I will go check out wikiprojects and see what, if anything, is being planned...

I am also placing this message on Talk:Janis Ian

Thx, SteinAlive 06:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks again for the quick reply. I am only 3 weeks new to wiki - there is SO MUCH to learn! I am not aware of any other pages which link to a category from a wikilink within an article or if there is a policy on the issue, but that was the only fix I could come up with in short time. (I did see an official wikipage from which I learned about the colon in front of the category, which seems to indicate that in certain instances at least it is ok to link to category pages) Thus far, most of my edits have consisted of adding wikilinks where they seem appropriate, but I have also reverted some vandalism and entered some citations. I plan to go over the whole Janis Ian article to wikilink for dates and other links and ensure only the first instance of a term is linked.

I understand and thank you for the WP: PIPE info. I don't think that the category link would be considered an easter egg since it is still on topic - it just allows the user to choice what part of the currently-available topical information on music history (s)he wants to go to - although not quite 'intuitive'.

Oh, I am a fan. Her last album touches me deeply. (currently listening to 'Great Divide') And thank you for being my first entry on my talk page - whatever that means. SteinAlive 08:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mindys12345 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will do that instead Thanks Mindys12345 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genlisea aurea

Nice work on the Genlisea aurea article (I plan to copyedit etc. later today when I get a chance). I was going to nominate it for DYK, but I see you've already done so. :) Another picture or two would be nice... maybe a diagram of the traps? I'll see what I can do if I get a chance here in the next few days. --NoahElhardt 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/k/i/User_talk%7ERkitko_83f1.html"