User talk:Earthdirt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Earthdirt, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

The most important thing, though, is your knowledge of botany, an area in which Wikipedia is short of editors . If you have any specialty areas, we would be glad to make suggestions of articles that could use some help, in fact I have a list on my talk page although feel free to just go in and edit whatever you fancy, tying information in to specific references, but correcting misinformation without doing so. --KP Botany 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gillenia, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erigenia bulbosa

Updated DYK query On 24 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erigenia bulbosa, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving

List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked the article, and I've saved it on my computer. Don't let the naysayers get to you. I think that there are different ways of making it a keeper, and if it gets deleted, it can come back. I've read about these things for years, but just never understood how those conclusions were reached. A few sources, a different approach, and it'll be bulletproof. In the meantime, I'm amazed at the parrots who say that your work is "original research". It's got a few problems, but an article based on your own personal observations isn't one of them. Mandsford 02:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I apologize if my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving has offended you in any way. That is not my intention. But you need to understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information even if the information is true and verifiable. Chris! ct 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving

The keep votes weren't really grounded in policy and were mainly along the lines of WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not at all opposed to turning it into a userspace essay though, would you to host it? east.718 at 21:41, 11/15/2007

Plenty of userspace essays get lots of traffic. The examples that jump to mind are a widely accepted piece on nationalism, an epic hoax that survived for a while, or just plain humor which has come to be accepted as part of a user's personality. As for the section on cells...
Please contact me if you wish to recreate the article sometime in the future; I need to merge the edit histories for legal reasons. Hope this helps! east.718 at 22:11, 11/15/2007
Sorry, I didn't realize initially that you were asking for the entire article. I've moved it to User:Earthdirt/List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving. east.718 at 22:40, 11/15/2007

[edit] Couscous

Couscous is not of "African" origin. It is a North African, Mediterranean dish. There is no evidence provided, unsurprisingly, since it does not originate in Sub-saharan Africa, which might explain why it does not exist and never has existed in sub-saharan Africa. Further, the cuisine of North Africa, like the rest of the Arab World, has no similarities to sub-saharan African cuisine. It may be possible that it is of Andalusian origin, however. What is controversial is the absurd claim that couscous may be of African origin. The fact that some Afro-centrist contributor wishes to appropriate a dish is perplexing and frighteningly insane. The sad fact that non-Arabs are not knowledgeable enough about the Arab World to recognize just how absurd this claim is is extremely worrying in cases such as these, where anyone can dictate what is controversial and what is not. I am not the first one to have noticed this, although I am clearly the first to act upon my disbelief. Most importantly, however, no evidence is provided, only mere and I might add, desperate speculation such as, "black cooks were often charged with the cooking of couscous, another reason why it might be of African origin." The reason why blacks were charged with the chore, along with other chores, is because they were brought as slaves to North Africa and the rest of the Arab World. Blacks, therefore, performed all the menial tasks, much as was the case in North America and Europe. Now, in North America, blacks were often charged with the baking of many dishes, which does not imply nor lead any logical human being to conclude that these dishes originated in sub-saharan Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.124.78 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maghreb or Berber- This I left alone, although it must be stressed that Maghreb is NOT synonymous with Berber. There is, however, a BErberist movement on the rise that is as pseudo-historical and pseudo-intellectual as the Afrocentrist movement and other similar movements based more on myth than fact. The fact that most North Americans are not familiar with the Southern MEditerranean in the way that say, Europeans are, might be the reason why such terribly mythological claims are routinely overlooked on the English wikipedia.

In sum, the reason why it is not controversial is because it is not a claim that is sustained by evidence. It has been there for a very long time and no evidence was provided. Someone appears to have tried to fool readers by stating {fact} after the claim that Blacks often cooked couscous. It is indeed a fact that blacks, since they served as slaves, would have perfomed the task, most likely under instruction from a superordinate. However, to manipulate wikipedia in this way is unacceptable. The attempt to detract the reader's attention away from the fact that the claim is mere speculation by factualizing an actual occurrence, namely slavery, is dishonest and vicious. Thanks. 68.94.124.78 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Awards Center Newsletter

I'm pleased to announce that the Awards Center will be getting its own newsletter shortly. If you want to receive the WP:AWC newsletter, put your name here. --Sharkface217 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of basic cell biology topics

Excellent job so far on List of basic cell biology topics. I'm impressed.

I've moved it to article space, because it is fleshed out enough to be useful to users of Wikipedia. And in article space, it may attract others to help you finish it.

Keep up the good work, and I'll see if I can find anything to add to the subject, to give you a hand.

The Transhumanist    06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

I'm very impressed by the job you did on the cell biology list. Therefore...

The Bio-star
is hereby awarded to Earthdirt for doing an outstanding job producing the List of basic cell biology topics, and for going far beyond expectations by including a definition for each presented topic. Thank you for creating such a useful resource for newcomers to this subject. It's fantastic! The Transhumanist    03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


I look forward to seeing whatever task you pick next.

Cheers.

The Transhumanist    03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a list you might like to sink your teeth into...

After working on this awhile, I realized this might be something you would be interested in: list of basic immunology topics.

The Transhumanist    18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


By the way, I've temporarily used the word "agent" to describe antibodies, white blood cells, etc. - do you know the appropriate word for this class of things? The Transhumanist    18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi...

How is forestry going?

The Transhumanist    19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lonicera maackii

Thanks for the explaination on Lonicera maackii species authority, much more convincing than what is in the article itself. Lorax (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)