User talk:Curtis Clark/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Curtis Clark/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

n-dash

Thanks for highlighting the whole thing about the n-dash for me — I like to pretend to be a grammar pedant but obviously I still get it wrong! --Lord Pheasant 06:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Pecan

Hi Curtis - Carya illinoinensis is correct; see Flora of North America and Letters, HortScience 26(11):1358 for details. - MPF 29 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Yes; presumably a typo on the part of IK, though I don't know the full details. - MPF 29 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for copyediting my plant articles. English not being my native language, I tend to have issues with vocabulary. Circeus

Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005

Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice work fixing the addition to Rancho Cucamonga, California. -Willmcw 21:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing the category on Coast live oak. I ran a trial run on AWB, and you got to it before I did. --—Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks the third

I'm glad you caught out my wrong usage of microgametophytes at male. Could you tell me whether a plant strictly has "male" gametes at all or are microgametophytes the closest cell plants contain? --Oldak Quill 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Microgametophytes (I prefer the term "male gametophyte", since it's more precise) produce sperm cells, ranging from the dozens or hundreds made by heterosporous lycophytes and ferns to the two produced by most seed plants. A pollen grain is the male gametophyte of a seed plant; in the second stage of its life, the pollen tube, a single nucleus divides to form the two sperm cells. They lack flagella in flowering plants and conifers, but have flagella in ginkgoes and cycads.--Curtis Clark 06:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't realise that plants had sperm, thanks for the info. --Oldak Quill 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Burs

Everything I found in the first several pages of Google about Burs the ancient people is from Wikipedia or a copy of it. Can you cite a reference?

No, I can't. I didn't write that material; I just edited the page to make it visible.

Because "bur" is a common US spelling of "burr", I would be a lot happier if there were an article about the ancient people and then some disambiguation pages.

Well, it's a wiki, so you can edit it if you want. In my personal opinion, a "see also" should be sufficient, since the Burr article already explains all the other meanings. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note on deleting material on user talk pages. I will no longer do that. Dapoloplayer 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Guidance appreciated ...

Thank you for your helpful comments on my discussion page ... Ingyhere 09:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Need help from a botanic expert

Thank you for sharing the brilliant and techincally excel picture in the Salvia columbariae artice.

Hi! Professor Clark, would you please help me to verify if the picture in the link is Coyote gourd (Cucurbita digitata or palmata)? [1] Also, I would like to know if this species occurs in the Puente Hills Area naturally.

Secondly, I need you help to indentify this beautiful flower in a landscaped lawn.[2] Geographer 08:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are right

I was at school when I replied to your comment and at the time I was a little upset about a grade that I had received in my Organic Chemistry test. I know I should not take my frustration on other people. Anyhow, I already requested permition to Cal Poly Pomona's webmaster for the usage of those pictures in Wikipedia. In case the request is denied I understand that the pictures must be deleted as they violate the author's copyright. Lufthmark 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm Cal Poly Pomona's webmaster (or more specifically Web Coordinator). I don't remember ever seeing your request. At any rate, it's denied. You may not understand the gravity of the "no rights reserved" notice that you placed on each of these images: you are telling the world that Cal Poly Pomona releases all rights to the images, which we would never do. Even if we wanted to allow an image to be used in Wikipedia, we'd go for the Creative Commons attribution-share-alike license. We're in the process of discussing licensing, and in the future may make photographs available to Wikipedia.
I'm still waiting for you to remove the "no rights reserved" notices from the photos; at that point, I'll remove the copyvio notices from your talk page myself. I'm also concerned about Image:CalPoly Pomona 1.JPG; I suspect it's a copyvio, also, since it looks like the style of our campus photographer. You uploaded it. Where did you get it? If it's also from a Cal Poly Pomona web site, I'd like to get it removed; if not, let me know where you got it; I'd like to help you establish Wikipedia's right to use it.
Oh, and when I took O-chem 30-odd years ago, the secret I learned was that it's impossible to memorize enough to get an "A" – it's really important to work on understanding basic concepts. I hope you do better in the future.--Curtis Clark 15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A new template for the pre-Linnaean botanists proposed

Dear Dr. Clark, please, consider the Template:Pre-Linnaean botanist. I made it as a follow-up of the article on Pierre Magnol by User:Wikiklaas. Don't you think it would be reasonable to apply it to the pre-linnaean botanists with author abbreviations instead of the Template:Botanist? Alexei Kouprianov 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio problem

Dr. Clark I have deleted the "No Rights Reserved" notice from the pictures that I wrongfully uploaded. If I have edited them incorrectly I would like to know as I would like to stop contributing to plagiarism myself in Wikipedia. I did not understand that being a Wikipedian is a great responsibility and should be taken seriously and professionally. Without people like you, people like me would make Wikipedia a mundane and inhospitable place. Thank You. Lufthmark. 29 March 2006

Thanks. I'm still wondering, though, about Image:CalPoly Pomona 1.JPG; where did it come from?
One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that it lets everyone participate in a community of scholars. Welcome aboard!--Curtis Clark 00:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiThanks

A Image:WikiThanks.png, for your knowledgeable contributions to Wikipedia and the kindness with which you make them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Oh, duh!

Curtis, I'm sure the AD/BC (CE/BCE) thing has struck us all at some point. Single-character changes by an IP user usually are vandalism, so it's a good instinct... Cheers, --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

BOT 343

I just noticed your User:Curtis Clark/BOT 343. This is an interesting development, which may work out well for wikipedia! Do you know if you are the first to adopt this policy? Brya 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. The full assignment is at http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/classes/bot343/project2.html. I started an essay on the general principle at Wikipedia in college teaching, but so far all I have is the headers. The basic thesis is that the average term paper disappears at the end of the term, but a contribution to Wikipedia lives forever, and can be corrected as needed.--Curtis Clark 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
A very good idea indeed. I hope many will follow this example! Brya 16:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. I guess, I should do the same within the Russian Wiki-Domain Alexei Kouprianov 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

MichaelCMoore

So that's his actual name, and any similarity this guy is purely coincidental? — Apr. 10, '06 [04:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Not a problem. He's been fully unblocked. — Apr. 10, '06 [04:25] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Drosera anglica

Thank you for the support. Brya 08:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sporophyte

The reason why I said "full set of chromosomes" instead of "diploid..." was because many plants are polyploids, wouldn't it be more correct to say "full set" instead of "diploid set"? Diploid would mean they have a pair of each homologous chromosome, but they have more than two... right? --TheAlphaWolf 22:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a common source of confusion. The basic definition of "diploid" is the chromosome complement of a zygote. So the zygote of a tetraploid organism is both tetraploid (4x) and diploid (2n). I don't like "full set" because the haploid set is the full set for a gametophyte.--Curtis Clark 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that IS confusing. so it's said (4x) and not (4n)?
Yes, explicitly to avoid the confusion. "x" is the base number of a polyploid series. There are plants like Ophioglossum that have something like n=1024; clearly the x is much lower, but they are such ancient polyploids that it's hard to reconstruct what it was.

Oh right... and about the gametophytes... ALL plants undergo alternation of generations, therefore saying that in plants that do that is misleading as all of them do. Some algae also do it too. --TheAlphaWolf 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the works because the first paragraph after your edits was about sporophytes, not gametophytes, and some of the rest of it seemed to be verbatim from the sporophyte article,and I didn't have time to sort it out then. Your point about plants is correct. There are also fungi (e.g. Allomyces) that have alternation of generations.--Curtis Clark 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
... That's strange, I clearly remember making it fit the gametophyte article... I guess maybe I ctrl+Z'd too much or something. But anyway, would the separate stages of fungi be called "gametophyte" and "sporophyte" too?
Yes. The sporophyte of Allomyces produces meiospores by meiosis, and the gametophyte produces large and small flagellated gametes. (The sporophyte also produces clonal spores from separate sporangia.)--Curtis Clark 03:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

palo verde

Thanks for deleting the inappropriate image in the palo verde article. The species shown (Parkinsonia aculeata) is cultivated but not native of the USA, as far as I know. The same user inserted other unrelated images in a few other articles. I fixed the Amancay article.

Could you please check whether the caña brava she inserted in the article Phragmites belongs there? She told me

The Scientific Name of this Peruvian plant: GYNERIUN SAGITTATUM and its Family name is POACEAE. I hope this might help you. If you have any further questions, let me know. Regards --Evelyn Zuñiga 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jclerman 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The photo is too small to tell, but the fact that she called it "giant reed" (which usually refers to Arundo donax) and gives it another scientific name (evidently Gynerium sagittatum (Aubl.) Beauv.) suggests that it should be removed. So I removed it.--Curtis Clark 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'm not a taxonomist. My knowledge of plants is via environmental isotopes in C3/C4/CAM plants, plus some past exploration of the Patagonian Andes and currently restoring local vegetation in my yard in Tucson, AZ. I noticed that Evelyn Z now put the Caña Brava image in the article Arundo, which again I think it might be incorrect. Can you please check it out and also wheather her image of a Cesalpina[sic] belongs in the article Divi-divi? I appreciate your contributions, real experts are rather rare in the wiki... Jclerman 07:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
MPF already took care of those.--Curtis Clark 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dobermann POV

yes i realise that, but it's not POV it's matter of fact, i did not say i was talking about the entire population, i was talking about the overall breed as it is naturally, bu i thank you for your say and i will incorporate it into what i have to say about doberman's but you must admit, that what i have said is justifiable—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis (talk • contribs) .

thank you, you have helped me get a point accross in a less-hostile way. yet i feel you have missed out misunderstanding of dogs in the media.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis (talk • contribs) .

I understand perfectly well the portrayal in the media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Reference some of the media portrayals, and people will take you more seriously as a Wikipedia editor.--Curtis Clark 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm not stupid, i've used wikipedia for ages, i may have only just joined but i know how it works, so don't treat me like i'm stupid. i did list some, you removed them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis (talk • contribs) .

My mistake, and my apologies. What you wrote was so POV that I didn't pay as much attention to the references as perhaps I should. They did get restored, right? And it's not an issue of stupidity, it's an issue of consensus. Several other editors of the article found your wording POV. Please note that most if not all of us agreed with your basic premise; we disagreed only with the way you wrote it. As others have pointed out to me plenty of times, no one owns a Wikipedia article, and repeatedly pushing a view even in the face of discussion that suggests that you tone it down generally rubs people the wrong way.--Curtis Clark 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No Image

I am currently adding a transparent image placeholder so that the rows that doesn't have images doesn't get dwarfed by the rows that does. Also, it looks better that way than a short and wide box. Is that better the Image:Noimg.png since it's transparent and blank? G.He 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for understanding.--Curtis Clark 19:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On orthographical errors

Hi Curtis - one I've never been able to find out: does pensylvanicum (in e.g. Acer pensylvanicum) constitute an error to be corrected to pennsylvanicum? William Penn can't be too amused, I'd suspect, but the species is (almost) always given with the original spelling with just the one 'n'. - MPF 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Article 60, Ex. 1, states:

Ex. 1. Retention of original spelling: The generic names Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and Amaranthus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus and the spelling is not to be altered to "Mesembrianthemum" and "Amarantus", respectively, although these latter forms are philologically preferable (see Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1928: 113, 287. 1928). - Phoradendron Nutt. (1848) is not to be altered to "Phoradendrum". - Triaspis mozambica A. Juss. (1843) is not to be altered to "T. mossambica", as in Engler (Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C: 232. 1895). - Alyxia ceylanica Wight (1848) is not to be altered to "A. zeylanica", as in Trimen (Handb. Fl. Ceylon 3: 127. 1895). - Fagus sylvatica L. (1753) is not to be altered to "F. silvatica". The classical spelling silvatica is recommended for adoption in the case of a new name (Rec. 60E), but the mediaeval spelling sylvatica is not an orthographical error. - Scirpus cespitosus L. (1753) is not to be altered to "S. caespitosus".

This gets back to my point about Pinus sabineana that a misspelling is only a typographic error if the author intended to spell it a different way from the way it was printed. And, unlike the Pinus example, pensylvanicum could in no way be considered an orthographic error – there is wide latitude in latinizing place names, and in supplying epithets in general. Back when I used to do this sort of thing for a living, I would have looked at later works by the author of the species to see how it was spelled. If pennsylvanicum, a typographic error to be corrected. If pensylvanicum, an intentional spelling.--Curtis Clark 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Black Sage

Thank you for correcting my bad article writing. ILovePlankton 15:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for adding to the article!--Curtis Clark 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Curtis Clark! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Glen TC (Stollery) 06:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spore (video game)

Thankyou for your support - and a friendly hello! Your university home page was very interesting (Renaissance botanists, cracked me up!) and your proposal of Wikipedia as a learning tool couldn't be more correct. I myself use it as just that - going over, editting, verifying and seeking new informtion for pages is the sort of active learning I just can't seem to muster for my own personal notes at home, haha -- Serephine / talk - 03:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saying hi

Hey, you're local! I'm at Rancho Santa Ana in the grad program there. I was wondering, do you think it might be helpful to have an article about the Jepson Manual and its history? At least in regards to the articles about California flora, it might be nice to have a pointer to something about Jepson and its importance in California floristics. --Clickie 07:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Who are you working with? I taught Plant Speciation there a couple of times in the 1990s, did a sabbatical there in 1994, and have done some collaborative projects.
I'm working with Dr. Elizabeth Friar as my primary advisor, but not on silverswords. --Clickie 06:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a Jepson Manual article would be a good idea; it's clearly encyclopedic.--Curtis Clark 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

carnivory

Hi, Curtis. Didn't realize you were also a Wikipedian, but I'm not surprised. At any rate, I think of "insectivory" and "carnivory" as different things (and, indeed, the carnivore article does separate them, at least by considering one a specialized subset of the other). Just one of those cases where the technical definition versus what people mean when they use a term aren't quite the same, so I just felt it needed a little clarification. Peace, Dyanega 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, I apoligize for what my little brother did. We share a computer and he frequently vandalizes WIKIPEDIA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.160.34.153 (talk • contribs) .

Not a problem. Maybe someday he'll decide to be a Wikipedian and make some important contributions.--Curtis Clark 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another spelling query

Hi Curtis - is it Acoelorraphe or Acoelorrhaphe? Original spelling is the former, and is used by FNA and USDA, while the second is used by GRIN despite acknowledging the original spelling. Any thoughts? - MPF 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Index Kewensis (at IPNI) has Acoelorrhaphe as the original generic name, and all the listed species have the generic name spelled that way. Gray Card Index (again from IPNI) spells it Acoelorraphe, with many of the same species. Gray doesn't have an entry for the genus, so I'd tend to go with Kew, but the real measure is what Hermann Wendland wrote in the protologue. Either is a correct latinization, so IMO there are no correctable errors, and it all hinges on the protologue.--Curtis Clark 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Urggggh! Strange that Kew go the other way when GRIN state that Acoelorraphe is the original. Have you got access to Wendland, by any chance? Unfortunately, I don't. Thanks! - MPF 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I asked Clickie, who has access to a good botanical library.--Curtis Clark 23:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks! IK being wrong reminds me of Carya illinoinensis, they got that wrong, too - MPF 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture of thread

Hi Curtis. I uploaded another version of the image. Please check [3] to see if it's up to your standards and add it to the article if you think it's of any use. I'm afraid I can't do any better than that with the equipment at hand. Adamantios 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted

I am well aware that I need to work on civility. It's just so frustrating to see what was a somewhat decent article become so screwed up over the past six months. --Coolcaesar 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"articles that are not part of the AfD process"

While I fully agree that User:NinaSpeaking's placing of AFD tags on those articles was basically vandalism, I don't understand what you mean by "articles that are not part of the AfD process". Surely any article is part of the AfD process once someone nominates it for deletion. User:Angr 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. The vandal hardly had time to create valid AFD entries (thus turning the red links blue) before the vandalism was reverted, but in fact (s)he probably never would have gone to that much trouble anyway. User:Angr 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

24.17.30.248 responds

hey, man. I don't feel like signing my name. there's no rule that states that i need to. Thanks for wasing you time and going behind me, it's been fun.

Cat:Oaks

Hi Curtis - two reasons; first, Cat:Fagaceae is still small enough to accomodate all the articles written for the family so far (having them all in one cat makes checking 'recent changes' for vandalism, etc., a lot quicker and easier), and second (because eventually, a Cat:Quercus may be needed), cats can't be moved, they have to be deleted and the new one created. Once Cat:Fagaceae has more than 200 articles (the most a cat page will show), that will be the time to make Cat:Quercus and re-cat them again; but with under 80 articles done so far, that's a long way away yet - MPF 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My lInks are not spam

Hello

I Got your name there that u deleted my link of helpfulhealthtips.com in sex determination topic.

Can i know the reason! My Links are not spam.

They contain my own original articles which i contribute everywhere. I am a medical consultant and want to give my articles.

Please let me know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helpfulhealthtips (talk • contribs) .

scientific vs. common names

Okay, sorry! —Keenan Pepper 03:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pinus cone bract scales

Pinus pinea cone showing free bract
Pinus pinea cone showing free bract

Hi Curtis - they are free in Pinus (i.e., only fused at the base, like all other Pinaceae). They are closely adpressed onto the seed scale and (usually) very short and stiff, but it is possible (by bending the scale down a bit) to get a a sheet of paper between the bract and scale, as in the pic right. - MPF 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I've never looked at a mature cone in that regard, having relied on (obviously false) characterization in the literature. My supposition was reinforced by the young cones (see the lower photos), but of course that doesn't say where the subsequent meristematic activity is.
Picea sitchensis cone
Picea sitchensis cone
There's a lot that's not too well covered in the literature - ever read of a Picea with exserted bracts? I've not, but here they are, on Picea sitchensis
I guess the notable thing about Pseudotsuga is not that they are free, but that they continue to grow.--Curtis Clark 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The bract scales reach full size fairly quickly, the seed scales grow rather more slowly; thus in e.g. Larix decidua the bracts are readily visible on young conelets (April to June roughly), but get covered by the growing seed scales by maturity. Pseudotsuga - and others where the bracts remain exserted at maturity (Keteleeria, Nothotsuga, Pseudolarix, many Abies, some Larix) - it is just that the seed scales do not get large enough to cover the bracts.
PS Happy 230th! - MPF 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, 240 years ago, we had just finished fighting on the same side as the British.--Curtis Clark 20:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Alas, history never was my best topic, nor maths - I knew the 'big' year was 1776 as Jimmy Carter visited my home town and nearby Washington (where George Washington's family came from) for the 200th anniversary and we all got the day off school to go and see him. But when I subtracted 1776 from 2006, somehow, I got 240. Don't know how! - MPF 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If I were going to see a US President, Carter would be the one I would want to see—I think he was greatly underrated as a President, but he has actually accomplished more since he left office, something that can't be said for many of the rest.--Curtis Clark 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar Rfc

I think that there are enough people that truely hate Coolcaesar for his overpassionate views and his degrading humanities, and the ways he approaches problems. He totally discriminates, irritates, and humiliates affiliates on situations that he particularly doesnt like. If you look at his talk page, it is full of hate and angry messages from people who were offended by his animal-like behavior, and it needs to stop. The summaries and discussions he carries out almost perpetuates fights to start, making people angry, and making them do things that they would not normally do. Looking at pages he has contributed (which he claims ownership of many) you will notice that on the talk page he has humiliated, trask-talked, and devalued someone who didnt agree with him like he was a communistic ruler. It is degrading to people for him to think that his status at Wikipedia allows him to be so abusive, and hurt people so bad mentally that they would do anything to retaliate against this maniac, and I think that this issue needs to be addressed. An Rfc should be in order, and I will be contacting ALL the people he has offended and degraded, which will take a long time because there are a lot of them, to get his power taken away from him and give him a taste of his own medicine. I will follow through and give the people so hurt by him JUSTICE! --69.232.62.33 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you use a sockpuppet to bring this up, rather than your own user account?--Curtis Clark 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:3pera4.jpg

Hello.

I saw that you tagged Image:3pera4.jpg as a copyvio. However, the site that you said it was from had many many pictures of flowers, and I could not find the right picture. Could you point out which picture it is on the external site?

Many thanks, -- Where 03:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It hardly matters, since the owner of the site has emailed me that he never licenses any of his photos at variance with the license stated on the main page. But since you asked, http://www.swcoloradowildflowers.com/White%20Enlarged%20Photos/3pera4.jpg. It looks like I am going to have to instruct Dr. Schneider on how to write to Wikipedia to secure the removal of his photograph, since normal channels don't seem to work very quickly, if at all.--Curtis Clark 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted it - MPF 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.--Curtis Clark 03:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No probs; any other copyvios you find drop me a note - MPF 00:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Toyon - nomenclatural query

Jepson's Heteromeles arbutifolia or GRIN's Heteromeles salicifolia? GRIN seem pretty sure of their change but don't explain it. Looking at the respective basionyms, Photinia arbutifolia appears to have priority (1821 vs 1851) so if they're right, there must be some other reason for the change - MPF 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Puzzling. I suspect the pertinent reference is Phipps, J. B. 1992. Heteromeles and Photinia (Rosaceae, subfam. Maloideae) of Mexico and Central America. Canad. J. Bot. 70:2140., but Floral Morphology of Maloideae (Rosaceae) and its Systematic Relevance, Joseph R. Rohrer, Kenneth R. Robertson, James B. Phipps, American Journal of Botany, Vol. 81, No. 5 (May, 1994) , pp. 574-581 may also be relevant. I'm guessing that Phipps either decided that toyon doesn't include the type of Photinia arbutifolia, or else that the two are distinct species. I can check the AJB article from work tomorrow (we have JSTOR).--Curtis Clark 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF 00:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

South Dakota

I'm guessing you're talking about the bit I added about the South Dakota quarter trivia when you say it's POV. If this is not how I should communicate with you, I'm sorry, I'm a long time user of wikipedia, but only recently started editing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.115.0 (talk • contribs) .

Please see my response to your post at the talk page.--Curtis Clark 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLATE (talk • contribs) .

Glad to help.--Curtis Clark 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

64.327.252.122

To answer your question Curtis, no I have not edited the citrus article for a long time. Therefore I am not the same anon you speak of. By the way, if it helps I will provide edit summaries & I appreciate the welcome you gave me, but please delete the page you made for me. I deleted it from the Wikiproject Plants Talk page because I prefer TOTAL & COMPLETE ANONIMITY. I have no idea how you got that page back, but please delete it. I am not a vandal, just a general science enthusiast & I did not know about the edit summary part. As a matter of fact, I was looking for it the other day, not knowing what it was called or where it was located. Anyway I would appreciate if you would take down the page. It would mean a lot to me because I am afraid of hackers. Please take it down just in case, even if I am not in danger of hackers. I will check back at your talk page until you reply. - 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you do not trust me, just look at my edits. - 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But the point is that you are not anonymous: you are posting from an IP address owned by the Puerto Rico Telephone Company. The IP address of another anon who has posted recently to Citrus, 64.237.255.79, also belongs to that company. I am not saying that you are the same person as 64.237.255.79, but most casual observers with an understanding of Wikipedia and IP addresses would assume that you are. And Wikipedia records every edit you make, with the associated IP, since you are an anon.
You would actually be more anonymous if you created a user account, since your IP would no longer be associated, you could use a pseudonym, and you can vanish if you need to in the future (an IP can't vanish, since multiple people might use it). I would strongly encourage you to get an account, both to protect your privacy and so that other editors will more readily take your seriously. But of course it's your choice.
I can't delete the user talk page for 64.237.252.122 (I'd have to be an admin to do that). I can blank it, but then so can you. Because it is considered bad form to delete information on your own user talk page, I'll go ahead and do it. But that doesn't mean that someone won't add to it in the future, or even recreate it if it were deleted.
At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia.

--Curtis Clark 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

By the way, what do you do when you post a message to a person who won't answer it (and, by the looks of it, won't answer anyone else's beyond a certain date) and you have proof that they have been using Wikipedia recently (which rules out that person not using his/her computer)?.

I can't really think of a circumstance where that would be necessary that wouldn't violate Wikipedia:Civility, unless it was part of the investigation of a vandal or sockpuppet.--Curtis Clark 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. - 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, the person in question is an admin. They in particular are supposed to answer queries and, though that person's earlier posts had been answered, the recent ones haven't. The situation in question was that the admin. had reverted one of my edits. All I wanted was to know why and the go back to my stuff. I didn't see anything wrong with my edit, except maybe it wasn't well written and that could have been fixed with a cleanup. Anyway, as I said, admins are supposed to answer comments, I think. Please Reply. - 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are diligent admins and haphazard admins, admins with time on their hands and totally busy admins. If I were you, I'd be tempted to do my edits over (not just revert them), put "see Discussion" in the edit summary, and explain on the article's talk page why I had made the edits (and ask for cleanup if you think it is necessary). An important part of Wikipedia is assume good faith, and it is most important to do that for others when you suspect they aren't doing it for you.--Curtis Clark 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The person has already replied. By the way, I think the general wikipedia public already knows my page number as she replied there. Oh well. What's done is done. I'm not sure about making my own page, but I think I will keep that one as people are already answering to it. Thank you for your time, comments and advice. - 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only natural for someone to respond on a talk page, even for an anon.
FYI, your post above was from 64.237.251.74; evidently your ISP dynamically assigns IP addresses for each session, which is common.--Curtis Clark 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for review

Curtis, could you please look over the article Type (botany)? I need an outside opinion, preferably from somebody with some knowledge of botany, as to whether my edits are really as horrific as have been claimed. (Be sure to see the last version edited by me, before it was reverted by another editor.) MrDarwin 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. Some of you edits were clumsy, but nothing more, and certainly not deserving the diatribe.--Curtis Clark 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; I very much appreciate your taking the time to read the article and make comments. I guess I really just needed some independent confirmation that I have not completely lost my senses. I am a systematic botanist by training and by profession, work in a major herbarium and deal with the ICBN on a nearly daily basis. That is not to say that I understand all the intricacies of the Code; I doubt anybody does as while it is quite explicit and precise in many respects, it implies many other things, and leaves much else to the imagination (such as what are we to call a duplicate of a neotype or a lectotype?) so even the most experienced botanists can disagree over certain interpretations. Nevertheless, I think I understand most of it well enough to explain to somebody who is not a systematic botanist, and by and large that is the audience Wikipedia is writing for. Otherwise we might just as well throw up our hands and refer everybody to the Code itself, and despair of being able to explain it in plain English or to accompany those explanations with examples. What is ironic is that I agree with Brya on many things--Brya is right far more often than wrong--but have found him/her almost impossible to deal with. MrDarwin 01:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Brya often fails to see things in context, especially as relates to the Code. You (now that I know more of your background) and I both know that the Code was hammered out by the ink, sweat, tears, and blood of generations of taxonomists; that it doesn't even come close to specifying all our activities, but rather provides a rather minimal set of rules to keep us from making the nomenclatural mistakes of the past.
One of the most disturbing things to me about Brya's attitude is that it is people like him/her (I'm guessing him) who make botany seem so uninviting. Here in the United States, botany is widely deprecated, to the point where it is difficult to get an adequate undergraduate education, and "that's just botany" is used as an insult in other fields of science for dull, unimaginitive work (you know I'm right if you work here). One of my chosen tasks here in Wikipedia is to proselytize for botany: not through POV, but by explaining the NPOV wonders, mysteries, and controversies in a way that will inspire scholars a-borning to accept botany as a legitimate field of inquiry, and perhaps take it up themselves (just as I read the World Book Encyclopedia recreationally as a youth back in the late Pleistocene).--Curtis Clark 04:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it is not my "attitude [and those] of people like [me] who make botany seem so uninviting." but rather vicious attacks by one botanist upon other botanists such as that performed by MrDarwin here. Also the lackadaisical approach to fact (as evidenced by the "clumsy" edits of MrDarwin in the type (botany) page): if somebody who claims to be a botanist does not care to get fundamental issues correct ("I will just wing it, it is only botany, who cares") why should non-botanists take botany seriously?
I remember the time when MrDarwin was courteous and thought before he acted. I also remember when he started going off the deep end (as in cultivar) without prior warning and the time he moved in defense of 'genetic research' as an important tool of taxonomy. It is a great pity that somebody who makes only a few edits in wikipedia restricts his edits to damaging botany. It is a great field, so why be so mean? Brya 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember a time when Brya was courteous, but then I've only been around a bit more than a year. I remember plenty of times when Brya improved articles, and plenty of other times when it was Brya that was "so mean" to other editors, enough so that s/he got him/herself an RFC. Anyone who starts out "It used to be so that you did your thinking before editting [sic]" is at best prolonging a battle and at worst inciting one.
As we say here along the northeast Pacific, "Chill!"--Curtis Clark 21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ginkgo

Hi Curtis - could you check over the latest edit by anon 60.41.38.215 to Ginkgo, please? Some of it seems useful, but other bits I'm less sure about - MPF 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of it is substantially correct, but I'm puzzled by the last two sentences. When I used to teach Plant Morphology, I routinely collected seeds from some local ginkgo trees for the students to dissect, both freshly fallen and still on the tree. They either had fully formed embryos or none at all. It's hard to believe that an embryo could form so quickly after fertilization (considering that the rest of the reproductive cycle is so glacial). I've added {{fact}} and will attempt to clarify when I get the chance.--Curtis Clark 13:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I tracked down some references, uploaded a photo to Commons, and edited the section.--Curtis Clark 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice one, thanks! - MPF 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

sexual identities

dude, you need to chill out, youre wayyy too mad off this bro! and yeah you come off as a PC-nazi dude, like for real yo. i understand that this is an encyclopedia but youre reaction has been extreme and was very rude and has a terribly antagonistic and mean tone. "where you didn't put the template; what's up with that" what do you mean whats up with that, am i perfect, am i sposed to know every single article where it could fit dude? geeze, if you care so damn much, BE BOLD add it yourself or be nice and message your concerns to me, its not point of view dude male/female.. humans isnt such a strech, but yeah i added Man and Woman since they are more fitting, but i.d.k. i think male and female might be merritted, so what if its not a human only article, i dont know hows its POV to add them to sexual identity but yeah whadya thinkQrc2006 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the link i LMAO! and heh sorry about being rude, and theres no such thing as someone's template, alltho yeah i did create it and was tweaking it and trying to make it work and adding it to everywhere relevant, go ahead and add it wherever u think its appropriate this is a collaberation, never feel the need to not do somthing cuz its not your terriroty Qrc2006 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

64.327.252.122 Revisited

Me again! What happened to the Citrus article? I checked it out and it said that there is no article with that exact name. I had to check out the history to be able to see it. What's going on?! - 02:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Must be a temporary database glitch. It appeared for me both at your link above and through the Go/Search box.--Curtis Clark 03:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aztec

Dear Curtis, thank you for your message. I am not a big fan of vandalism, but I do think that when the same exact section is repeated in an article nine times in a row, it should be deleted. Please correct me if I am wrong. I reverted the article back, you are welcome to study the deleted fragments in greater detail to ensure that only redundant information was removed. User:Levan

Question

I recently managed to get attribution for this image: Image:Delicate rose.jpg. I noticed from the talk page for rose that you know your stuff, and I was wondering whether you could identify it's class etc. so I could add it to the articles with a correct caption. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my specialty is wildland plants, not cultivated ones.--Curtis Clark 13:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Etiwanda CA

Hey, sorry to ask, can you make an article for Etiwanda, CA, Thanks. (66.174.92.162 08:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

You could register and make it yourself.

All I could make is a stub, since I don't know a lot about the community. Would you add more? Also, it would be Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, California to follow a recent consensus on article titles for communities within incorporated cities.--Curtis Clark 14:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Excuse me?

I forgot to sign in this morning when I edited a few pages, soon after you added this message to my IP address' talk page:

“ Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Curtis Clark 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ”

What are you talking about? As far as I can tell I didn't add any "nonsense". RyGuy17 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It was this. I didn't look closely enough, and assumed that you had switched the numbers but not the units. I routinely revert unexplained changes in numbers by anons; 95% of the time it is an attempt to introduce subtle vandalism in hopes that editors won't catch it. Now that I revisit the edit in question, I see that you were giving primacy to the miles figure over the km figure. I'll change it back. If you're the only person using that IP, I'll remove the tag, but from the looks of the edit history, you aren't.--Curtis Clark 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note

Mindspillage is currently sick. I suggest that you report your impostor(s) to WP:AIV, where you'll get a much faster response. 128.2.251.78 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, CurtisClark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has now been blocked by Nlu (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). 128.2.251.78 07:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.--Curtis Clark 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure who left the notice saying I was ill, but it was an accurate one, and thanks for that; glad someone else got to the blocking. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 07:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lithocarpus denisflorus

Thanks for the quick copyedit--it was one of those irritating little Wikipedia pages that completely ignore the local ethnobotany, and I didn't want to wait to edit, when I should have. KP Botany 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to wait. There are always others to fix things overlooked, and I know you'll do the same for me someday.--Curtis Clark 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Prickles are not spines

Re: "The spine article is actually incorrect; prickles are not spines"[4]. I won't agrue the point as I agree with you but wonder if the better course, then, would be to fix the Spine (botany) article, perhaps even renaming it (e.g. Prickle, Spine, and Thorn, rather than simply not link to it. Henryhartley 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree (and Spine (botany), Thorn (botany), and Prickle (botany) could redirect to it, but I don't have time to write the article now, and after the whole situation with roses had been clarified, I hated to see it "declarified". Unless you'd like to start the article (and I'll be glad to work on it once it's started), I can get to it next week.--Curtis Clark 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I was afraid you'd suggest that. ;) I'll see what I can do. Thanks. Henryhartley 13:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Paleodicot

I've heard and seen paleoherb used a lot, and basal angiosperms, but don't find paleodicot used in my textbooks (Soltis and Soltis et al, and the latest Raven et al., will check Simpson's glossary), and it's used in half-a-dozen or less articles that I can find through internet searches, other than multiple references to the same articles. I've never heard it used in a seminar, although I have limited academic contacts. There are no dictionary definitions for it other than Brya's. Can you cite some paper sources that use this? Or a definition? Thanks. Yes, it's overblown in comparison to the APG III stuff, though. KP Botany 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so much a paper reference (I'm out of touch with the recent literature since I left teaching for web design), but rather that I immediately knew what the article was about (the paraphyletic group formed by removal of the monocots and eudicots from the flowring plants), because everybody called them that back in the late 20th C. I think that perhaps it fell out of favor, since it is after all a paraphyletic group. If you are not a member of Taxacom, I'll be glad to post the question there.--Curtis Clark 04:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and post at taxacom. I read but don't post. The term seems meaningless in light of Raven et al. and other sources reducing dicot to an archaic term or putting it in parantheses, and this would have to be included in the article, that it's a word built of an archaic term.
Inasmuch as "dicot" is an archaic term still in wide use (along with "reptile"), I don't think that alone is justification for not having the article. I'll post to Taxacom this evening.--Curtis Clark 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What exact valuable contributions to Wikipedia has Brya made, by the way? I've gone through a few dozen of Brya's pages and found misinformation, misintepretation, speculation and/or incomprehensible jargon on every single one. Just send me to a single page that's his/hers and valuable, please, as I am curious. KP Botany 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I've totally lost track of any useful contribution he has made! LOL --Curtis Clark 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
But at least you've retained some humor about the issue. Mine will come back. KP Botany 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plant phylogeny

I saw your comment on the Spermatophyte talk page, and a similar diagram is inserted in the Plant article. I've posted a question about it on MPF's talk page as I think he is responsible for it. These diagrams need to be very carefully labeled, as they apparently represent the phylogeny produced from one particular research project, presented in a particular publication; it certainly doesn't represent any kind of consensus with regard to the interrelationships of the major groups. MrDarwin 14:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dobermann

This doesn't make any sense:

Ears This is not true, however, of Dobermann ear cropping, which is usually done between 7 and 9 weeks of age.

What is not true?, it just starts saying that something is not true, but what is it?, that's why I edited it and left the 'Dobermann ear cropping is usually done between 7 and 9 weeks of age'.DamianFinol 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence as you originally modified it read, "Dobermann ear cropping, which is usually done between 7 and 9 weeks of age," which is a sentence fragment, and I wasn't entirely sure what you were trying to accomplish. I have no issue with your second edit. I assume that the part you deleted contrasted ear cropping with an earlier edit of tail docking, where the contrast would be more apparent.--Curtis Clark 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Plant stem

thanks for the correction...was wondering if you could give a few examples of a 'stem.' even after reading the article, i'm not too clear on the concept. thanks again. --emerson7 | Talk 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert

May i know why you have reverted Sage engine in sage ? --SkyWalker 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reverting vandalism, and you evidently edited during the few minutes between when I brought up the diff and then reverted. I'll put it back.--Curtis Clark 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --SkyWalker 08:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BUR

Thanks for fixing my forgetting of this link at BUR. The redirect was made obviously necessary by the addition of the BUR airport code to burr... Circeus 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Encelia leaves

Hey Mr. Encelias-in-Jepson, what do you make of apparent E. farinosa with leaves 10 cm long or more? Saw some planted along a new street here the other day, never seen Encelia leaves that big... Also, ran into some extreme leaf dimorphism on Frenchman Mountain, with 2-cm-leaf plants side-by-side with 6-cm-leaf plants, no blooms so can't tell if hybrids or what - can send you a photo if you're interested. Stan 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As the species goes, big leaves are not unusual; both var. phenicodonta and var. radians in the Cape region routinely have leaves 10 cm, with some longer than 15 cm. Also, the leaves of plants in inland cismontane southern California (the eastern Inland Empire) are longer than leaves in the desert, and 10 cm is not unusual for well-grown plants. I'd be interested in seeing the photo of the dimorphism.--Curtis Clark 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha - it's quite likely the developer would have gotten these from a California nursery. Encelias are becoming quite fashionable locally in fact, showing up in a lot of Vegas new-home front yards. Stan 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to make Wikipedia better

Dear Professor Clark,

You sent me a message today implying that I am spamming Wikipedia with links for advertising and promotion. With all due respect to your botanical experience and level of participation on Wikipedia, I object.

I am a gardening and botany enthusiast. When I discovered I could be a part of perfecting Wikipedia's knowledgebase, I was ecstatic. This morning, I was merely supplying information to enhance and/or correct the pages that I edited. Specifically, the Juniperus squamata page on Wikipedia incorrectly refers to that species as Flaky Juniper, when it is known as Singleseed Juniper. I made that change (without deleting the words Flaky Juniper), but you undid it. You also deleted the reference that I added to substantiate the change. I added several other references to other Wikipedia Juniperus pages this morning to substantiate changes there as well, but you deleted them also.

I want you to know that I truly appreciate your veracious pursuit toward the integrity of Wikipedia. But I am writing to you to declare myself as someone who shares the same concerns and beliefs in that regard.

I welcome any suggestions you may have for us to work in unison and I look forward to your reply.

Fractaloctal 17:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's simple, if you have a source for accurate information, then quote it, but the commercial site you've added is not an acceptable reference for botanical articles even when dealing with the common names of plants--if there is no possible way that you could cite it on a scientific paper, even at a junior high school level, it cannot be used on Wikipedia for a reference. Try the USDA or USFS for native North American conifers, or the Gymnosperm database for common names. If you find it in that, then reference it to one of these pages, and go ahead and add the information. Here is a link to the USDA plant profile page listing "flaky juniper" as the common name for J. squamata.[5] They could be wrong, but you would have to find a source more reputable than the USDA to show this, an unattractive google-spam-banner page is not going to cut it. KP Botany 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Fractaloctal has a point regarding the common name--"singleseed juniper" is used as a common name, along with "flaky juniper", in some reputable references (a quick Google search will turn them up) but I agree that the links have to be to somewhat more authoritative websites, and adding links to numerous articles without adding content will almost always be considered linkspam. MrDarwin 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Botanical nomenclature

Hi, I saw you corrected my erroneous edit of the Maize article. Since I'm fairly clueless on nomenclature I was hoping you might be able to give me some advice.

  • Zea mays L. subsp. mays identifies Linne as the author of the specie. But who is the publisher of the the subspecies?
It is an autonym, created when a subspecies other than subsp. mays was published.
  • Is this the right way to abbreviate the name when used subsequently later trough the article? Z. m. L. subsp. mays
Other than at a sentence beginning, one could simply say "subsp. mays". In the context of this article, "maize" makes the most sense unless you want to contrast subsp. mays with subsp. mexicana.
  • Should subsp. or ssp. be used? The article ternary name recommends subsp.
It's purely editorial. I used to use ssp. all the time, but it can be confused with "spp.", the abbreviation for species (plural), so now I usually use subsp.--Curtis Clark 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

--Alf 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :) --Alf 02:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Schinus molle

Hi - I saw your note on the talk page of the Peruvian pepper article (and responded to it there). I created the article from scratch at the beginning of this month, which is why there's no history before that. (I moved the redirect on Schinus molle too; it was pointing at Schinus.) I'd be grateful if you could have a look at the article; I'm not a botanist, just someone who's very interested in edible plants! Squeezeweasel 13:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You did a nice job, and I'm glad it now has its own article.--Curtis Clark 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fabaceae

Curtis, please re-read the last sentence of Art. 18.5, which I interpret to mean that the name Leguminosae cannot be used for the family in its narrow circumscription although I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the names Fabaceae and Papilionaceae. Is this saying that Papilionaceae must be used over both Fabaceae and Leguminosae when the family containing Faba is narrowly circumcribed? MrDarwin 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Duh! You're right. I'm not sure how I overlooked that.--Curtis Clark 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Never repeat a word

Enjoyed your recent comments on Taxocom (whatever the list serve is called). People add variety to articles in English, simply because English is a rich language, without the understanding that it really is rich, not all words are equal, and variety doesn't always enhance communication. KP Botany 17:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Burr people

I found them at the French page, where all three have article. I can try to translate them or create stubs if you'd prefer me to. Jeannette Burr is a currently requested article for sports and Jeff Burr was the director of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I'm not clear how notable Courtney Burr is; he apparently worked on the theater versions of The Seven Year Itch and Sailor Beware. I just found about Australian politician Max Burr, too. Circeus 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User page

Someone added a userbox to your user page, so I deleted it. I assume they meant to add it to their own, so I welcomed them to Wikipedia and popped the user box to their talk page for their convenience. KP Botany 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!--Curtis Clark 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent proposal for WP:CAL and WP:SOCAL tags

User Spamreporter1 has made a proposal for the tagging issue. He was not previously involved with either project before seeing this discussion, and I belive that his opinion therefore is NPOV. The suggestion is that articles that have no state-wide scope be tagged only locally. Please go to this section on the SoCal page to provide input. —ScouterSig 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some ecological terms and relationships

I'm trying to compile a section on how organisms are broken down when they die for the death article, however I'm having some difficulty understanding the subtleties of some of the terms used. One thing I'm unsure about is the difference (if any) between detritivores and decomposers. My copy of Biology (the Neil Campbell text) seems to use the terms synonymously, however we have two separate articles on them. Yet looking at their definitions I'm failing to see any clear defining characteristics to separate the two concepts. I'm also unsure if there are any further differences between these two terms and the term saprotrophs, which again has its own article, but very similar characteristics.

Finally, and I'm not sure if it is a specific biological term itself, does scavenging actually include eating dead plant material as the article states, or is it limited to dead animals only? And if it is limited to this, how is it different from necrophagy?

Sorry to trouble you with these questions, but hopefully you'll understand these concepts a lot better than I do and be able to help with clarifying them for other readers as well. Richard001 10:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the terminology, but maybe I can focus the issue. The decomposer article states that a scavenger would still have usable energy in its feces, which could be further decomposed. This implies a hierarchy of sorts, where scavengers/necrophages eat dead stuff, and their feces and bodies are further decomposed by decomposers. But it is not at all that clear-cut: For example, a nitrifying bacterium might produce nitrate as a breakdown product that it cannot further decompose, but a denitrifying bacterium could use it as an oxidizer (I may have the specifics on this confused). And of course "who decomposes the decomposers?"
Another measure is to consider which organisms might fit one but not another of the definitions. A vulture would be a necrophage, and a scavenger, but most people wouldn't consider it a detritivore, nor a decomposer, and since saprotroph implies external digestion, that would be ruled out as well. On the other hand, a soil fungus would clearly be a saprotroph and a decomposer, but no one would say that it's a detritivore (or any kind of "vore") or a scavenger (which implies some greater level of activity). But it could still be considered a necrophage.
I think most or all of these articles should be merged, with a discussion of the relevant biology, and a separate discussion of the differing uses of the terms.--Curtis Clark 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa on plant stems

Sorry about the celery blunder, and thanks for the correction. Actually, if the intent is to refer to stems broadly (to include rhizomes and perhaps other specialized stems), then Jerusalem artichoke probably was correct after all (I'm not going to look dumb again by expressing certainty on this point). Kingdon 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

weedy

So what is the biological definition of weedy then? Surely a weed is a plant in the wrong place. So how can arabidopsis be in the wrong place if it is either in a natural habitat where it evolved or in a lab, where the researchers wish for it to grow??? SuperRuss

Weeds are r-selected and are adapted to disturbed habitats. Such plants are preadapted to human agricultural settings, but play a role in natural ecosystems as well.--Curtis Clark 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's not wholly true! Just think of an alien species invading an undisturbed eco-system. This species will be classed as a weed. Also, Rhododendron ponticum is a weed, but isn't adapted to agricultural settings. You're definition is flawed, and I doubt that 'Weed scientists' sit around talking about the definition of weeds all day, there is obviously more to the discipline.. 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk • contribs)

Has it ever occurred to you to ask why alien species invade undisturbed ecosystems? Has it ever occurred to yo to ask what are the salient differences between Rhododendron ponticum, Arundo donax, and Lactuca serriola? And, most important, has it ever occurred to you that encyclopedias must be more concerned with definitions than scientists are, since the audience for an encyclopedia is not already familiar with the subject? And what does any of this have to do with a sociological/psychological definition of "weed"?--Curtis Clark 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has occurred to me, but I am not concerned with it. I am simply stating that R. ponticum is a weed, but isn't a weed in your definition nor does it fit into your definition that they are suited to an agricultural setting!!! I never said encyclopedias shouldn't be concerned. I was referring to your statment that if weeds where just plants in the wrong place there wouldn't be a whole discipline of weed science. - to which I am stating that I am sure that weed scientists dont sit around all day JUST discussing what a weed is!!! Superruss 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Chlamydomonas

and there was me thinking that they are fungi and now I here that you are teaching that it they are plants! - pity really, because they are neither, they are protazoa....

Chlamydomonas are green algae, which are plants in the sense of being Viridiplantae. It surprises me that you, who recognize that Fungi are not plants, would use a biologically misleading term like protozoa.--Curtis Clark 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sedona

I was just curious as to why you felt the need to remove my photo of the sedona brins fire from the Sedona, AZ page. Coffeegirlyme 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. It was in the midst of a number of other edits, many of which were either obvious tests (by editors prior to you) or attempts to do things that failed (such as the zip code in the wrong field), and, not noticing the photo, I decided to find the last clean version. I'll put it back.--Curtis Clark 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thx

Ephedra

Hi, thought you might want to participate in a discussion at Talk:Ephedra regarding whether the genus article or medicine article should be at Ephedra, and what to call the medicine article if there is a switch.--Eloil 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Census

Hi. I noticed you reverting the edits made by an anon user who was adding "2006 census" data to various articles (Arizona, for example). I just noticed that the US census page does list 2006 data, meaning that the anon user's edits were probably good. Just thought you should know. -Nicktalk 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anons get no respect. Had he included even an edit summary, I probably would have let it stand.
Someone needs to correct the US Census article, or at least the infobox, because his edits introduced redlinks.--Curtis Clark 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any 2006 numbers at the US Census site. For instance Apache County, Arizona's entry in the US Census site, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04001.html has a 2005 estimate but no 2006 numbers indicated on it. Could one of you two point me to the 2006 census data you're referencing? This anonymous IP has done a bit of editing in the days since and they very much seem to be insidious vandalism. Gruber76 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's all suspicious, but I was willing to take Schwnj's word for it. Absent any explanation from him/her, I think the edits have to be regarded as spurious. I don't want to try reverting any tonight (my DSL is glitchy), but I can do a bunch with my 100 Mbs connection at work tomorrow, if you wish.--Curtis Clark 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you visit www.census.gov and use the "population finder" on the right, 2006 figures are listed for states, counties and MSAs. (Cities will be updated this summer). For example, here is the entry for Arizona [6] and Maricopa County [7]. I'm sorry for not citing them. The norm is to use Census figures, and I assumed these were easy enough to find. -Nicktalk 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm glad to see this is for real. Now on to the next issue: the county infobox is clearly designed to cite actual decennial censuses, not the mid-decade estimates, which better belong in the introductory paragraph. Maricopa Co. is almost right; if it had the 2000 census figures in the infobox, the year link wouldn't be redlinked (there's a United States Census, 2000, but not a United States Census, 2005. The 2006 figures in the first paragraph are exactly where they need to be (although the wikilinking of the date is off).--Curtis Clark 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, that sounds exactly right. It sidesteps the political "controversy" over estimated census data in some circles while providing as much information as possible. Is that a Wikipedia guideline somehwere? If not, perhaps it could be proposed.Gruber76 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your revert at Puvunga

In re your change here, I did in fact fix the link. All a red link means is that an article on the subject has not yet been written, and while that is often a sign that the link is inaccurate, it is not always. As you can see looking at the diff above, you would have seen that I changed where the link went, in effect, changing where a new article will be created if someone clicks there and decides to create an article. If you had gone further and gone to Serra Springs and clicked what links here, you would have noticed that multiple articles link there, all of the articles that mention the Kuruvunga Springs, and that nothing links to the Kuruvunga Springs article (also not created). What isn't mentioned in Puvunga, but is in other articles that discuss the springs in greater depth, is that the Kuruvunga springs are a California Historical Landmark, and are officially listed as Serra Springs. The springs are known mainly by the Tongva name, Kuruvunga, but as they are officially listed as a Historical Landmark by this other name, the article namespace should be created there, and that's why I changed where the Kuruvunga Springs links went. When a user has made an obvious content change as to where a link goes that you don't understand, you may want to look further in order to see if you can figure out what they were doing, or you may want to ask them. Either way, reverting a content change on the basis that a redlink exists where a redlink had existed before doesn't make sense. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I did look further, and the article didn't exist, nor does it now. Why don't you create a stub, and redirect Kuruvunga Springs to it, so all the redlinks for both articles will be blue?
Consider it from my point of view: a redlink is changed to another redlink. I assume good faith, but I don't know whether you will actually create the article. If I leave it, it won't show up again in my watchlist (I've already looked at that diff), and so it could potentially remain a redlink indefinitely. If someone came along and created an article Kuruvunga Springs, and didn't redirect Serra Springs to it, the redlink would be counterproductive. Your point about nothing linking to Kuruvunga Springs is correct only at a moment in time, and, although I see the logic of your position, it still pushes work off to future editors, something that creating a stub wouldn't do.
I figured it was most likely that you would eventually create the article and then revert my change. I perhaps should have been more explicit in the edit summary, but I intended no ill will.--Curtis Clark 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not I create the article is irrelevant. Serra Springs is the official name for the springs according to the list of California Historical Landmarks, and therefore, that is the namespace where the article should be created. If someone creates and article about the Kuruvunga springs and doesn't bother to look up their listing as a California Historical Landmark, and therefore doesn't find out their officially listed name, then they really didn't do a good job creating that article, and that's really not my problem. Considering that I watch the articles in question now, and that it's not hard to check whatlinkshere, and that Kuruvunga Springs will redirect to Serra Springs, it's not a problem.
Yes, I suppose, theoretically, I was pushing off work. I wasn't creating a stub or doing content work. Perhaps all wikification is pushing for off for other editors, no? While you may not recognize the importance of minor edits, I was correcting the link--the link linked to a namespace where no article will be created, and while their will eventaully be a redirect there, we are supposed to avoid redirects.
My point simply was that you didn't know, and so not knowing and assuming that if you got it wrong someone would redo it or fix it later, you reverted. You could have checked a variety of wikipages to see why I'd made the change, or you could have asked me. But when you don't know why someone makes a change, and therefore have no idea if it is correct or not, and yes, changing where a link goes is a content change, ask them, don't revert.
Also, to make surfing what links here pages easier, I've nowikied the links above. I hope you don't mind. If you do, feel free to undo that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A redlink to a differently titled redlink confuses the reader, please don't. Removed nowikis as they make this hard to follow. Curtis said nothing about not recognizing the importance of minor edits, and since he is one of a small group of editors who courteously make minor corrections all the time to my articles, please don't assume what is not said. KP Botany 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I blue-linked Serra Springs as the quickest and easiest way to resolve the issue. Please add information about the name Kuruvunga Springs and any stub category tags necessary. Serra Springs might better be titled Serra Springs (California). KP Botany 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, KP. Info added, article moved (better to move it now while there are still so few references). I also created Kuruvungna Springs and Kuruvunga Springs as redirects.
In retrospect, perhaps the best action would have been to de-link Kuruvunga Springs and insert a comment to the effect that Serra Springs is the "official" name.--Curtis Clark 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Curtis. KP Botany 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll take what I have from the Uni page already and add it to the stub, as that's where the most is written about it. Good thought linking both of them, but the second is, technically a misspelling, it's just very common so I'm going to remove it from the article. And, you know, the other wiki-articles where we misspelled it. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Orthography if the Takic languages is very variable, and the place-name ending is no exception. Outside of the Tongva area, -nga is used almost exclusively, e.g Pechanga. Modern Tongva uses -ngna, but many derived place names end in -nga, e.g. Kukamongna => Cucamonga, Kawengna => Cahuenga, Topangna => Topanga. I have seen "Puruvunga" and "Puruvungna" for the site at Cal State Long Beach. If indeed "Kuruvunga" is not used, we should avoid it, but it is not de facto "wrong".--Curtis Clark 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Unlike these other names where both instances are often used, or like Gabrielino/Gabrieleno, as far as I can tell, it isn't used by the Tongva. It's spelled elsewhere, mainly in articles and in government documents, the ones with the most variety. I haven't seen any evidence of the Tongva selling the spring this way--that's why I used the word "wrong". Miss Mondegreen | Talk   05:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Redlinking like that is both appropriate and common afaik. You can see the additional redlinks "Indian Laurel Trees" and "rubber sidewalks" in the University High School (Los Angeles, California) article. I am in no way able to write a stub for either of those, and in no way do the name spaces belong at either of those names (they belong at "Ficus macrocarpa" and "rubber asphalt" respectively), which would leave me with the alternative of NOT wikilinking. I can see how this might be confusing, but it's also confusing when you follow actual wikilinks and something is only briefly mentioned. Can you site anything that shows that we aren't supposed to pipe redlinks? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Redlinking is a complex subject, with many variations in style by individual editors. Just to give one example: On the Sage disambiguation page, people are always adding red-linked personal names. I always revert these; with no citation, there is no evidence of the person being notable. On the other hand, there once were a number of redlinked organizational acronyms on the page, which I left, since the organizations were plausible, and articles might someday be created. Another editor removed them, and I didn't contest.
As far as piping redlinks, IMO it is always undesirable absent mitigating factors. You explained those factors, which I accepted, and the end result is a fractionally better encyclopedia, but I guess our remaining disagreement is whether it was incumbent on me to seek out your reasons, or on you to explain them.--Curtis Clark 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue was mainly that your edit summary didn't say "piping redlinks undesirable", or anything like that, but it made it appear as though you hadn't looked at the diff carefully, and didn't notice that where the link pointed changed, so instead of reverting with an explanation as to why I chose to do that, or replying to you, I felt that I had to explain to you what the difference was. At the end of the day, a fairly good stub has been created (with hours of research time I didn't have, but whatever), so it all turned out well, I just think that communication was lacking. It turned out that you understood exactly what I had done and disagreed with it, but I couldn't tell that at all from your edit summary. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   05:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Come back soon

I hope you return soon, we need you if wikipedia is to be of any use for those that want to learn about plant science, and I need you to correct my edits...I concur that the vandalism is frustrating and that sometimes it seems futile Hardyplants 11:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Curtis--I share your frustration with vandalism. In my opinion rampant vandalism is one of the major things keeping Wikipedia from being as great as it could be. Vandalizing accounts should be blocked immediately and permanently. Vandalism is one reason (among others) why I don't spend as much time editing Wikipedia articles anymore. It's frustrating to scan my watch list and realize that a huge number of the edits represent vandalism, petty or otherwise; I revert the really flagrant ones but otherwise have pretty much given up. MrDarwin 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll return after your break. More scientists = better encyclopedia, bottom line. I blocked that account, FYI. I'm more of a hardliner against vandalism than some others because the fallout of vandalism isn't limited to damaged articles... — Scientizzle 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has written in support. I've come to realize that I was spending perhaps an hour or more a day on Wikipedia, primarily reverting vandals (I know that doesn't seem like much compared to many other editors, but I have a lot of other things going on in my life right now). I've started pruning my watchlist, in hopes of reducing my tendency to fight vandalism and giving me time for writing actual content.--Curtis Clark 04:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.