User talk:Djlayton4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
| August 2006 - February 2008 |
Contents |
[edit] Image source problem with Image:Georgetown circle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Georgetown circle.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Acer rubrum
You're definitely right on this one. The source I have (Campbell) is a survey of the bluegrass savanna uplands, which is the dominate ecosystem in most of the region. I forgot that the gorge section (which we call the Palisades) is also part of the Inner Bluegrass. Thanks for doing such great work on this page by they way, and thanks for sharing that insightful pdf file.Masebrock (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lamium purpureum
I restored the gallery because the photo you used to replace the one originally in the taxobox has a very narrow depth (of focus) and did not provide the reader with a proper sense of scale. The single photo makes the specimen appear larger than it really is. At least one image in the gallery was of better quality (depth of focus, crisp) and most of them gave a better perspective relating to the size and environs of the plant. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and restored two images from the gallery per the reasons above. I used the <br clear="all"/> tag to push it below the taxobox and added/adjusted captions. (I was not aware that the gallery was overlaying the taxobox at lower resolutions. I use 1280 x 960 screen resolution, so it looked fine to me.) Thanks ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bromus interruptus
 |
On 25 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bromus interruptus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Main page nomination for Manzanar
With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated Manzanar to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests -- Gmatsuda (talk)
- The nomination was removed intially because there can only be five nominations on that page, but it's back, so if you are so incllined, please offer your support. Thanks! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trees, plants, whatever
I think I've never met so many people who are unwilling to even consider another person's voice in any "discussion," and I no longer care about it, but I do thank you for taking the time to alert me about the issue. --Blechnic (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I accept your graciously offered apology. Blechnic (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Quebec plants
Think you could try to give me a heads up when you create articles for Eastern Canada plants? I have quite the bit of material I can add to Trillium grandiflorum (e.g. the fact it is the provincial flower of Ontario, and it's protected in Quebec and some states). Circeus (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm keeping off maintenance and other "heavy" duties I used to hang around (FLC, FAC etc.) and trying to concentrate on content creation. Right now I'm working on a cluster of articles about a Lévis area family, but I have a book with some good material on Trillium ecology (the book I added to the article, it's got a good bibliography, though there could be more connections between the text and the references >___>). Right now I'm into RL administrivia (I hate red tape, HATE HATE HATE), but I'll come back to T. grandiflorum and add stuff soon enough. Circeus (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I went across to get the Chase & Chase book. It's fairly good, but one has to take into account that it is written from the perspective of people who want to grow and spread the growth of Trilliums, and they quite often complain about "zealot conservancy", but they do bring together a lot of data on germination, for example: apparently, although production from seed is still fairly difficult, especially for commercial purposes (they aknowledge almost all sold trilliums are wild-collected), growth under horticultural conditions is much faster. Circeus (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I was reluctant to use "bract" because bracts (which we define as "specialised or modified leaves", so the term is not entirely inappropriate) are typically, in a way, "leaves that don't readily looks like them", but here they are leaves for all practical purposes, including identification. Both Lamoureux and Case refer to them as leaves without ever mentioning "actually, they are bracts" (which is the usual for Lamoureux). Oh wait, Case explains the details of it (as far as I can tell, they are "bracts" only because they attach to the base of the pedicel instead of the stem). Circeus (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As a random note, if we are going to work on other Trillium articles in the near future, I'll leave finding recent work on the philogeny of the genus to you. I'm not too interested in traveling to the campus more than necessary, and I'm the first to admit I'm not too good at database searching (Besides my new college doesn't subscribe to JSTOR, drats). I'll be happy to copy all the pertinents refs from Case & Case, though. On the other hand, as far as I can tell from the FNA treatment, the situation is still muddy anyway. Circeus (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I had no idea, really (though it often seems most families/genera I look in for articles to write are a taxonomic mess anyway XD), so I guess I'll stand by what I wrote in the article. In the book, they list 4 or 5 different arrangements (none of which actually used specific ranks AFAICT) for subg. Trillium, but do not clearly endorse any subgeneric arrangement beyond Phyllantherum's monophyly. If they haven't really changed their outlook in FNA, then I guess my summary is fairly accurate. Circeus (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It passed? *checks* Indeed! And far more easily than nominations I made on my own, at that, which I assume is a result of your involvement. I'd be most interested in future collaboration, assuming I can locate useful material, that is. I looked into the Reid's paradox suggestion and it does sound like an interesting topic for an article, though I'm not sure how competent I,d be at summarizing it. I know summarizing and combining sources is my weakest area when writing on WP. I did find a very nice summary of the issue in the debates of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, though. Circeus (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alternatviely, if you're interested, I think I could dig up some good material on Vaccinium stamineum pretty easily. Circeus (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
|
On 29 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trillium grandiflorum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
