User talk:EncycloPetey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Nov 2005 – Dec 2006 Jan 2007 -

Contents 1 Plant stubs 2 Importance 3 Rosid stubs 4 Category:Japanese citrus 5 Mechanisms and processes of evolution 6 Stub sorting, volume 3 7 IPA 8 NAD+ 9 Novels Collaboration of the Month 10 Transhumanist RfA & Uncivility 11 E-mail 12 Bot help with Category:Malpighiales stubs 13 Thank you for your vote on my RfA 14 DYK - CFBS 15 DYK comment 16 DYK spamming 17 A small note 18 Best edit ever 19 Next update 20 DYK, Triple 21 Well Done 22 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iapt.gif) 23 December 2007 24 DYK overdue 25 Mentorship 26 Block evaluation 27 Help!! 28 CfD for taxobox categories 29 DYK 30 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 31 Introduction to Evolution 32 DYK 33 GA review 34 How do you do that? 35 Merry Christmas 36 IAPT 37 Tyrannosauroidea 38 RfA thanks 39 Re: DYK 40 Image:Knitta on Delancey M-cropped.jpg 41 IATP 42 mindless template pasting 43 Tyrannosauroidea GA Review 44 Block on Wiktionary 45 Advice 46 Respect towards other editors 47 Please Unblock my Account 48 Botany templates 49 DYK 50 Infobox WP:ORGZ 51 Garlic Mustard 52 Vascular plant 53 Bold text 54 syn 55 Monoicous 56 Plants 57 Organism, Ecosystem and Biome 58 Entoloma sinuatum update 59 Bad interwiki on monoicous 60 Mosses 61 Scadoxus 62 Vermiform 63 plant stubs 64 my watchlist 65 villous vs villus 66 Euryale ferox 67 Prokaryotic cell 68 Signature 69 tamil wiktionary 70 Gronophyllum 71 Novels Collaboration of the Month 72 history 73 Liverwort 74 a new article for DYK 75 Redirects with PLANTS banners 76 Wiktionary block 77 CAT:SHORTFIX 78 DOI bot edits 79 Warning regarding references 80 Thanks for your edit of 2007 August 14 81 Algae 82 Bot error 83 Andreaceae 84 More moss gathering 85 Where does moss grow? 86 Hylocomium splendens 87 Barnstar! 88 Cooperative venture 89 Cycad 90 HI AGAIN 91 yo

[edit] Plant stubs

Hi :-) I saw all your work on the plant stubs recently. Thanks for creating those other two stub types and updating the BotanyBot subpage. Much appreciated. I also wanted to check in and see if you had grabbed the pdf file off my website. I don't want to keep it up there for long since it technically is breaking copyright - publishing on the internet - but, how else is one to send a large file like that? Hope all is well. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Sorting plant stubs was where I got my real start on Wikipedia. I think I was the person who first proposed (and started) the initial subcategory stubs from {{plant-stub}} by taxon.

Yes, I have the Piippo article on my computer now, thanks². You can remove them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again for all the additions you're making to the stub list. Do you think the page works better now that I sorted by taxonomy instead of alphabetically? And do you know of anything that could take the place of all the nbsps? It's the only way I could figure to make a visual indent. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is easier now to see super- and subcategories for sorting purposes, but you're right that the nbsp's make for awkward formatting. I can't think of anything simple as a fix. The only possible suggestion I can think of is a massive table organized along the line of the one I did for the Diversity section of the Plants article. Perhaps one with periodic sections interspersed that give the header? It would mean another massive restructuring of the page, though. But I'm not sure that would solve the indent problem unless you used a really clever implementation of colspan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt many people will be editing it, since it serves as reference. The stubs don't change all that often except in little growth spurts like the current one. The reason I started that template was for the purpose of easily seeing which categories needed split; I guess it worked! I think I've spent enough time on it already, so I'm not going to worry about the nbsps. Well, a quick trip to spend quality time repotting plants and then it's off to bed. G'night! Rkitko ^(talk) 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Do you know whether the importance ranking of Core is used only by the 1.0 assessment team (and realted teams) or whether it is general to all assessment projects? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I know that we could change {{WikiProject Plants}} to understand the rating "core", but I don't know whether or not User:WP 1.0 bot would understand it and keep it logged. As it is, when something is changed from Start-class to List-class, for example, the bot treats it as if the template had been removed entirely, thus lists don't show up in our current article count. Not sure if that's by design or if the bot only recognizes the simple functions. I poked around a bit in the WP Assessment information but couldn't find anything. I was planning on updating our project template to include the link to the portal and some other minor changes. Do you want me to include a "core=yes" parameter with a category so we can track these core topics? Or would you rather it be in the importance function? Rkitko ^(talk) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If it can be set as core=yes, then that might be a better solution. Odd that you can't find documentation either, though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We can always change it later, too. Next question would be if we want a notice like the "needs-taxobox" parameter. Something like: "This page has been identified as a core topic for WP:PLANTS" or something similar. And if so, choose a color for the background :-)

Well, that all depends on whether the "core" designation is reserved to the WP Assessment team, doesn't it? It's why I asked whether we can designate articles ourselves as such, or whether that would just lead to confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Whether or not we can use the designation "core" for our articles when it's mostly just used to refer to core topics on the whole of Wikipedia. We might want to ask them about that before we go ahead with it. But I think if we make it clear these are the core topics of WikiProject Plants or Botany core topics, I think they'd be fine with it. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was also planning on maybe changing the category for needs-photo to Cat:Botany articles needing images to better represent all of the image requests in that category. SB Johnny and I discussed this a bit on WT:PLANTS, but we didn't really come to a conclusion or get other input. I would then take care of the 21 articles in Cat:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants and turn it into a category redirect with instructions on how to use the needs-photo or needs-image parameter in the plants banner. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the new name better, or perhaps Cat:Plant articles needing images to tie in with the name of the project WP:PLANTS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and for the sake of consistency across those "needing" categories. We do have some non-plant articles in that category, mostly botanists. I could see it as an easy stretch, though. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The danger in using "botany" is that we attract fungus and algal protist listings as well. It's a trade-off either way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, true. I hadn't thought about that. Cat:Plant articles needing images it is, then! And I've worked it out in the template so that "needs-image=yes" and "needs-photo=yes" do the same thing so we won't need to change any of the existing assessments, but editors can choose to use needs-image in the future if they so wish. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosid stubs

My, these are a bit of a mess. I took a look around to see what families could be split from existing orders, and discovered that the problem is worse than that. Currently, the Rosales stub category includes all the Pittosporum stubs, but that genus is in the Apiales under APG II. The Malvales stub category includes many members of the Oxalidales. The Malpighiales includes lots of Cucurbitales. All of these seem to be the result of Polbot, so not only are the stubs wrong...the taxoboxes will be wrong as well. :P

I think a new {{Cucurbitales-stub}} and {{Oxalidales-stub}} will greatly reduce the size of some of the larger rosid stub categories, but it will involve hunting down the articles and fixing taxoboxes. I won't have much time for stub sorting the next couple of weeks, but have put in some notes, ideas, and suggestions on User:BotanyBot/Plant_stubs. And by the way, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for setting up that page. The Stub Sorting group used to keep track of the sizes of all the stub categories, but it just became too much work to maintain. I always thought it was a useful idea, so I'm glad to see it resurrected for the plant stubs, at least. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - I think a {{Nepenthes-stub}} would be useful, yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the problems with Polbot's taxonomy as well. I believe Alai's bot was stub sorting based on information in the taxoboxes. If you point them out to me like above, I can have BotanyBot fix the taxobox and stub sort at 5 edits per minute so you don't have to take the time. There's still a bit of controversy over some of these taxonomic changes, but I trust you know higher taxonomy better than I. I still see a mixed bag in articles when it comes to Bombacaceae versus Malvaceae subfamily Bombacoideae.

I think all the stubs you created are very useful. I created that user subpage to make it easier to see which stubs might need splitting. To my surprise you found it and ran away with it. So thank you - I would probably have spent a lot more time making decisions on where to split if you hadn't stepped in. I never knew WP:WSS had tracked stub category size. It does seem like a good idea, but their scope is much larger than the scope of this list. I could see how it could get overwhelming. Though certainly a bot could easily check daily and generate reports. Anyway, I digress. I wanted to ask you, though, since you were creating all those stubs. Do we still need to propose stub types at WP:WSS/P? I know Alai trusts me with stub creation, but I think if I decide to split anywhere, I'll probably take it to that group.

The WSS proposal procedure is much loser today than it was two years ago when I started. (And given my long history with that group I'd be surprised if Alai didn't trust me with stub creation as well). All the one's I've created would be speedied as following the pattern set down. However, if there were a genus stub to make, I'd definitely propose and wait first, in part because a genus name can look like other things (where a family or class will have an ending that sets it clearly apart). That's part of the prposal rationale -- to keep ambiguous names out of the mix, and as well to make sure they get listed on the official list (which I've been very careful to keep as up-to-date as I can, even for those stubs I wasn't responsible for).

As for using a bot to fix the Polbot mistakes, I'm not sure how that would work. What information would I need to supply? For the Oxalidales and Cucurbitales, a list of pages could take almost as long to assemble as it would to edit them by hand, given the scattered nature of the stubs in question. I'm not fluent in the genera of rosids, so I have to look up the family info each time to see where APG II put it; the rosids and asterids changed around a lot from earlier systems. But, it is nice to know there's a stub-sorting bot. If I had known about it before, I wouldn't have had to sort the Algae stubs by hand. Almost all the green algae stubs were added by WillowW who used a reasonably good source with very good skill, so the taxonomy is mostly current (though I found two or three oddities that had to be fixed). The bot could certainly tag the Nepenthes and Polygonaceae stubs, as they have correct taxobox information (well, except for the division which is "Tracheophyta" in all the Polbot additions of flowering plants). --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the rationale involved in WP:WSS. Makes perfect sense. You don't need to create a list. All you'd need to do is alert me to something like the above - that a particular genus/family/order is in a shambles from Polbot and needs sorting - and I'll go to it. See diff for one of BotanyBot's contributions. I had to create a couple family categories under Cucurbitales and had to sort a couple things by hand, but the category Begonia was entirely Polbot's work, so it was easy to make BotanyBot take care of it. Cat:Cucurbitales stubs should be fully populated by now. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Cat:Cucurbitales stubs isn't fully populated. For instance, I found Anisophyllea‎ wasn't in there after the bot run. Did you run it just through the Cat:rosid stubs or through Cat:Rosales stubs as well? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, oops. I missed that one. I had the page open and was going to take care of that one manually but my browser decided to quit on me and I forgot to reopen that page and change it. I'll double check in the other stub categories, but I think I've got them all. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the bot handles longer lists better. The more hands-on material requires individual attention. Thanks for the additional tasks :-) I'll get right on it. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I agree that a Nepenthes-stub template would be useful. There are a few still lurking out there that wouldn't be classified as stubs anymore, so that I might have to do those by hand. Thanks again for all your work on this! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brunellia - stub as {{Oxalidales-stub}}
• Cecropia - stub as {{Rosales-stub}}, fix taxobox order as well
• Tropaeolum - stub as {{Brassicales-stub}}, fix taxobox order as well

All done. Let me know if you've got any other tasks for the bot. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ficus should all be stubbed as {{Moraceae-stub}}, and the taxobox div/class/order fixed as well. The Pittosporum stubs should all be {{Apiales-stub}}.--EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! Rkitko ^(talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Japanese citrus

There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input in view of your contributions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanisms and processes of evolution

Hi, the defination of genetic drift and mutuation has been copied from the article evolution, which is currently a featured article (recently featured). you might wish to raise the issue there also. i will try my best to re-write this whole article. Sushant gupta 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made an adjustment to that page; it had the definition and cause reversed. --EncycloPetey 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

are there any more technical problems in the article or is there anything else i can add in order to make this article a GA. thanks, Sushant gupta 10:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

firstly congrats you are now an admin, also can you please re-reviw the page. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It still has many, many problems. One problem is that the first section (not the introduction) seems wholly out of place. It is a summary of what evolution is, which should be in the evolution article, not this sub-article. The article still does not explain what is meant by an "evolutionary mechanism" or and "evolutionary process" and does not clarify what difference (if any) exists between them. Much of the text is written for a advanced college class in the subject, and does not make the material accessible to the general public. The structuring is also bad, with 14 independent sections; I have made an attempt to group some of them logically but the super-headers will require a few sentences each to summarize and introduce the underlying sections. It still needs a lot of work. Why not ask for help from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

since you stood up for reviewing this page i thought of discussing this whole article with you since you are knowledgable and a responsible wikipedian and an admin also. anyway, mechanisms includes selection, gene flow, genitic drift and mutuation and processes includes adaptation, speciation and co-evolution (these are outcome). you are also talking about the first section; i think it is of immense importance. you said that the page should be accessible to all; so it (the section) would provide them a general background about evolutionary mechanisms. articles here on wikipedia should have more technicality. if this article doesn't serve much purpose for any layman then i can brief them in general on the page Introduction to evolution. hopefully my points might be satisfactory to you. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of being satisfactory to me. you are trying to get the article pushed through to "Good Article" status, and I am advising you on the criteria they will be using. A general article that is too technical is not likely to be granted GA status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

who said so; i mean i haven't read this criteria anywhere. is it a new criteria for GA's recently introduced. i didn't knew about it. what about FA's. anyway thanks a lot for updating me. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is criterion #1 on "What is a Good Article?" : which part says that prose should be readable and jargon should be explained. Perhaps you should read the criteria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

i know what 1) criteria is. it is not mentioned that technicality is the prob. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You have to follow the links to the relevant policy on jargon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub sorting, volume 3

No problem. I'll get right on that tomorrow, or depending when I get home tonight. I decided to take a small trip down to Cincinnati for a half-weekend for some sight-seeing and photography. I'll let you know when it's complete. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cariniana, Couratari, Eschweilera, Gustavia (genus), and Lecythis Done. And re: adminship, I appreciate the thought. I think the tools could be useful in some cases and I wouldn't mind helping clear backlogs where needed. Thanks! Rkitko ^(talk) 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks as always! --EncycloPetey 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

Hi,

Please revert any IPA redirects you think are inappropriate, or let me know if there's a particular category of article you object to changing. Readers have been complaining for years that the IPA is inaccessible, but I'm only trying to do this in cases where all the reader needs is help with a few symbols, such as 'the following chart uses symbols from the IPA'. That's the vast majority of cases, but I can't spend much time with any one article, so I've probably redirected the link where I shouldn't have. kwami 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NAD+

Thanks! That's good to hear. All the best Tim Vickers 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement with this. I worked on it a bit more and just nominated it for FAC. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The FAC has been a bit on the quiet side, would it be possible for you to add some comments or suggestions? Your input as a non-biochemist would be particularly valuable, since I sometimes forget to explain technical terms! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novels Collaboration of the Month

You supported Sons and Lovers, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinalewis (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transhumanist RfA & Uncivility

Second time I've been accused of being uncivil in this RfA. I'm probably not helping TH at this point, but I think people (you and others) are pushing too hard to get perfection in a candidate, and using 'civility' as a way to throw off criticism of your opposition. In my view, long-term constructive editors with no history of vandalism or other abuse should enjoy the presumption of trustworthiness - and the trustworthiness of a user in the eyes of the community is what we are here to determine. Not 'is this user too wordy' or 'I disagree with the admin school and oppose because user participates'. Particularly not because someone failed to answer your optional question, or answered correctly but not in exactly the precise manner you were hoping for - many of these difficult questions with many answers are traps, intentionally or not. I won't be apologizing for criticizing your oppose, and I don't agree that my criticism has been uncivil. Avruch^Talk 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not bring your POV to my talk page. I am allowed to vote on my own and am capable of making a decision for myself. If you disagree, that's fine, but please do not accuse me of things just because I don't think the same way you do or vote the way you want. It is not my responsibility to explain to you how you are misinterpreting what I've said. Again, please do not bring your POV on a vote to my talk page. If you did not come here to apologize, then you have no reason for coming here. Your vote is your business, not mine. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Your talk page doesn't belong to you. 2) You asked for an apology. I explained why one would not be forthcoming. 3) You accused me of being mean spirited and uncivil. I explained why I disagreed. 4) Your vote, and all comments on RfAs and other community processes, are open to discussion by everyone. If you don't want your reasoning to be examined, don't vote. Avruch^Talk 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote WP:CIVIL: "For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another."

Conversation ended. Please do not escalate this to WP:HARASS. I have asked you to stay away and not bother me, and you have already chosen once to disregard my request. Instead, you have returned to fan the flames of incivility. Please do not return to my talk page and please leave me alone. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello EncycloPetey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

[edit] E-mail

Good morning! I tried your "E-mail this user" link and just got This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.. Do you have an alternative e-mail address you could swap in? That would tell us if it was a problem with the software or a problem with one specific e-mail address. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to send this time. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Did it work? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot help with Category:Malpighiales stubs

I've been sorting out the Salicaceae stubs, and now am updating taxonomy for all of Polbot's entries categorized in Category:Malpighiales stubs. I've come across two genera with many species that could use a bot fix. Neither genus is in the Malpighiales under APG II, so both the taxobox and stub need to be corrected for all the pages in the genera:

• Saurauia, which should be Ericales, and {{Ericales-stub}}
• Nasa (genus), which should be Cornales and {{asterid-stub}}

The latter also needs a genus page, and needs to have the genus link corrected. Right now, the genus for all these entries points to NASA via redirect. Should we use Nasa (genus), or commandeer Nasa from redirect to article, with a disambig link for the space agency? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll get right on those. I'd say we could reasonably commandeer the redir Nasa. The whatlinkshere page showed less than 50 links, quite a bit of those are the Polbot species pages. By the by, I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of resources for a list of species in a liverwort genus, Colura. IPNI failed me in that department and I only cobbled together a handful of species from JSTOR articles. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness! I greatly appreciate all the info you just flung my way. It's a fantastic start. The genus is on my backburner for now - I just wanted to get a start on it and lay down a nice list. I'll certainly get around to expanding it soon. And with those refs you pointed me to, I'll have no problem!

"The major texts on bryophyte ecology don't seem to mention possible carnivory at all." Indeed, it appears as if it has only been mentioned in passing in a few rather obscure documents. The carnivorous plant researchers pick through those obscure references, though, and stumbled upon it when updating information on the protozoan-munching Genlisea. The ref given in the genus article is highly respected and the authors are all fantastic researchers in the little world of carnivorous plant research. I just thought it interesting that some liverworts have been accused of carnivory. Another genus, Pleurozia, was also identified as a possible carnivore. There was a study[1] on a species from that genus as well, I just haven't been able to access a copy of it yet.

So thanks again for all that info! Oh, and BotanyBot finished its run, so those two genera should be complete. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1. Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well. I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK - CFBS

Having seen your comment on the talk page, please have a look at the CFBS article now that I've finished adding the details of the rolling stock. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK comment

Sorry about jumping the gun. Dec 6 had no suitable hooks left. Dec 7 has some problem hooks but, you're right, there are a few suitable ones left. Maybe we should have ADYK (almost did you know) and not put it on the main page! Chergles (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK spamming

If you like, I can handle passing out the credits, so that you don't have to congratulate yourself ;) --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, EncycloPetey! Thanks! --PFHLai (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I had just gone to upload the image for the next update, but saw you'd already done it. I like that much better than logging on and finding it's been 10 hours since the last update, as occasionally happens. Congrats on yet more quality DYK help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, EncycloPetey. So glad to have more than one person updating DYK. :-) Also, thanks for reloading DYKNU in advance. That's much easier than trying to update with DYKNU still empty. Double thanks for picking my noms. :-D Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A small note

Mama always told her children that, when gifted with a delightful trinket or somesuch, one must immediately despatch a note of thanks to the donor. So, Mr EncycloPetey, one is most grateful for the small colourful addition that you contributed to one's User Page in reference to the Mold cape. One tries one's best to make this world a better place, be it by one's contributions to this establishment, or simply by one's glittering presence, which shines a little light on the drab and dreary lives of those around.

Princess Venetia di Cannoli (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is most gracious of you, thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best edit ever

I'm sorry to see that you took that off your user page. It was the singlemost memorable item the first time I visited your user page. I mention this because we just had what I would rate as Wiktionary's best edit ever. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is truly amusing. Thanks for sharing! :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next update

I don't mind that you removed this from Next Update, but just to let you know you forgot to add it back to the nominations page, T:TDYK. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Actually, I didn't forget... I lost my internet connection while I was moving it and just regained access. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else ended up putting the nom back on the nom page, so no worries. Thanks for replying to me though. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK, Triple

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December 2007, a fact from the article Gary Willard, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December 2007, a fact from the article Eoörnis Pterovelox Gobiensis, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December 2007, a fact from the article Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well Done

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, EncycloPetey ... I understand there are quite a few notable topics who still need an article! --Victuallers (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that one other DYK contributor was so keen to get a medal that he stubbed his toe? Victuallers (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK overdue! Chergles (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iapt.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Iapt.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of updating the article which will use this image. This is why it is orphaned. If the bot (and its user) will be patient, then the image soon will not be orphaned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a fair use rationale for its usage in the article that you've created for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well noone bothered to mention that there was a specific template that had to be used; I've added this now after hunting down what was required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to :Image:Iapt.gif, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. β^_command 21:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are a bot. That is an automated message. Would a user please control this bot? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That was the user. And that was an error in good-faith. No need to block anyone. You're not allowed to use fair-use image in the userspace. Only in articles. Cheers! Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Betacommandbot is a bot. Betacommand is an editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The image appears in an article, and the user failed to respond to messages until blocked. He has now resorted to abuse. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're abusing your administrative priveleges and being incivl on Beta's talkpage. That's much worse than an honest misunderstanding from Betacommand. Certainly not grounds for a block. Maxim_(talk) 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I attempted twice to communicate with the user/bot about the situation. I received no response. I blocked, then received verbal abuse. I stand by the block. Please identify the violation of WP:CIVIL. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're actually dealing with a human user who had not violated WP:BLOCK in any way, although had maybe been a tad overzealous in prosecution of Wikipedia's fair use policy (the action of removing a non-mainspace fair use image was valid, but the need to do it was not high as it was destined for mainspace). The "out of control" block message, your initial response to this thread, and immediate previous messages from BetacommandBot on your talk page lead me to conclude you mistakenly believed that BC was his bot and was operating "out of licence" - I would suggest a simple apology would go a long way. Orderinchaos 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The user/bot has violated WP:HARASS in stalking my edits, reverting good faith edits as vandalism, and failure to communicate with me except in templates when contacted. A one-hour block is appropriate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bots can't violate WP:HARASS. It was not an appropriate block. Prodego ^talk 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the user who violated WP:HARASS, and it was the user who was blocked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment has been archived for reasons of user access. β^_command 22:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use offensive language on my talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments, see WP:CENSOR β^_command 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. You should not have blocked a user you were in a dispute with, Betacommand did everything right (if a bit abrasively), and your block was not within policy. You also need to stop these sort of comments, as a whole they are starting to run into WP:AGF problems. So please calm down. Prodego ^talk 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting viewpoint. I would not call responding to patient comments [2] [3] with vandalism warnings [4] "doing everything right". What exactly are you asking me to "stop"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block was completely outside policy in that (a) Betacommand did nothing that would warrant blocking and (b) you clearly blocked him for his conduct in an dispute with you. I would hope you would appreciate that blocks should be issued by uninvolved admins wherever possible. Betacommand's hostility in response to your block is regretable but I'm afraid people do tend to be angry when on the receiving end of an improper use of the block button. I suggest you apologise to Betacommand for one of the more absurd blocks I have seen, and then he can apologise for the language he used to respond to it. WjBscribe 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WP:HARASS may not be policy, but WP:BLOCK is a policy and does link to it under reasons for blocking. Tendentious editing is linked from WP:HARASS and described off that page as "You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others". I was not in a content dispute with Betacommand, I was having my edits reverted as vandalism.[5] Based on Policy and the pages linked from policy, there was indeed a policy reason for blocking, so it cannot be said that the block was "completely outside policy". Perhaps it would have been better to have an "uninvolved" admin assist, but I did first try to communicate with Betacomand (twice), and received only a vandalism warning as a reply. I am looking now simply to move on, not to continue to dwell on this matter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys please, it's over with now. It was a bad block, but lets not dwell on it - the best thing to do is for all parties to move on (as I've suggested on Betacommands talk page) - it's been a sorry event all round, and all parties could have handled it better. I think they both get the message. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with ensuring that an admin - especially one who has only had the tools for a month - knows when to block and when not to. I understand that EncycloPetey wishes to move on, but bad blocks can have serious consequences and wanting to be convinced the mistake will not be repeated before moving on seems sensible. This doesn't seem to be the first block of a longterm user in dubious circumstances [6]. I would like to see a clear indication that EncycloPetey wouldn't block again in these circumstances. WjBscribe 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The incident to which you refer ended amicably. I quickly realized my mistake, unblocked, andapologized [7]. As you also can see in the section below, the user playfully requested my help today with a DYK update. Now, please, may I be allowed to cool down and go about my business? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is important that EncycloPetey know not to do this, until then we can not let it drop. Prodego ^talk 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You make this sound as though you are planning to harangue me over an incident that has ended. I hope that is not the case. Please just leave me alone. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I didn't intend to imply anything like that. I just want to make sure you understand the policy. If Ryan is going to assist you with that, I see no further problems. Good luck, and if you are ever unsure about a block, please ask first. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I misundertstand when you said "until then we can not let it drop"? Please don't answer that; it is rhetorical. If I have misunderstood policy, then please explain in what way I have misunderstood. I have given my rationale above, and have received no reply pointing out a mistake in my reasoning. All I have had is something that feels more like bullying. Unless you are providing explanation of the flaw in my reasoning above, please leave me in peace so that I can resume contributing to Wikipedia. This conversation has led to nothing useful or productive, and so far has cost me four hours during which I had planned to be contributing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was poor wording, and I apologize. The policy on these things Ryan has agreed to explain, and I suggest you direct that question at him. However, if you would prefer I do, I would be happy to. Prodego ^talk 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm going to do tomorrow for EncycloPetey is give a full evaluation of the events, with respect to pre and post blocks. It'll look at all sides of this dispute, and hopefully explain the policy reasons why most consider this block wrong, along with the the "discussion" that followed on betacommands talk page. I'd appreciate everyone giving me till tomorrow to do this, I'm tired tonight, and I'm only half way through looking at everything. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

EncyclopPetey - in the interim, could you please consider appologising to Betacommand? I hope you agree it was a poor block and you owe him that much. Thanks in advance. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK overdue

I've filled the next update page. Would you transclude it to the main page? Don't block me by mistake :) Archtransit (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but consider moving to the main page and let me or others award the credits to the hook authors. Archtransit (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I remove one. Archtransit (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think DYK helps article building. When I learned of DYK, I created some articles but now I try to let others get credit and gain enthusiasm. Archtransit (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mentorship

Hi EncyclopPetey. I can see you've had a few problems with your blocks that you've made so far (I know there's only been about 5). Would you be interested in letting me mentor you to make sure everythings OK with respect to you tools? I can keep a check to make sure you're doing everything right, and give you advice if there's any concerns. You can also ask me any questions that you might have, and I'll help you wherever I can. What do you think? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any sort of friendly educational communication is always welcome. Be advised that opportunities for mentoring in the matter of blocking will hopefully be few and far between. My first block was a case of a linkspammer who did not respond to messages; my second an obvious vandal (school site) that had previously been blocked for a long term; my third was not so immediately obvious as a problem, but the edit history and communications from other admins showed that there was indeed a problem. My fourth was an unfortunate misundersatnding borne of trying to ensure the main page was safe. I continued to check on the user after issuing the block, discovered my mistake, and so unblocked and issued a profuse apology to User:Archtransit. We have no ill-feelings between us, judging by his playful remarks earlier today on my Tlak page. My fifth block is the first time there has been an issue about the appropriateness of the block, and I made sure it was only for an hour. There was some confusion on my part as to whether it was a bot or user being blocked, as I had no return communication from my postings other than templated messages. Again, I would welcome additional experience, particularly from someone skilled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah excellent. I see you don't make many blocks, but it's always important that when blocking users, we get it right. If you're not sure on a block, discuss it with me - it's often better to get a second opinion on things. I'll take time to make sure you're getting things right, and if there's a concern, I'll make sure I find the applicable policy so we can work through things together. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well, if Ryan is going to offer guidance on blocking I will leave this in his hands - I do think you should consider apologising to Betacommand but ultimately that's up to you. WjBscribe 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evaluation

Hi EncycloPetey, I want to talk through with you the problems with your block of Betacommand (talk · contribs). The situation arose because you removed tags that BetacommandBot had added, leading to Betacommand reverting your edits as vandalism. This was obviously wrong, he shouldn’t have reverted you and then warned you for vandalism, it obviously wasn’t vandalism. I think the block was initially made in good faith, you blocked what you thought was a bot making edits that weren’t within the scope of it’s bot request. The problems came when the block was reverted as a good faith mistake, and you changed your story in an attempt to justify the block – This wasn’t the correct thing to do. You claimed that Betacommand was harassing you, yet all he was doing was reverting your edits to images which many would argue were wrong. This in effect meant you were in a content dispute with Betacommand and given your new reasoning for the block, you blocked him to stop him reverting you. If you look at the blocking policy, you will note that administrators should never block another user that they are in an edit dispute with – quite simply, you are nowhere near neutral enough to make the block. If a block was required, you should have reported it to WP:AN/I and let an uninvolved administrator make the block – in this case however, a block wasn’t even required, and problems could have been solved through discussion. When you’ve blocked someone like this, you have to expect them to be upset, and further problems came when you kept posting to his page – it antagonised the situation. In a nutshell, this became a serious matter when you changed your story, and said you blocked Betacommand for harassing you – edit disputes are not won by blocking the other party, and this kind of block is considered an extremely serious matter and grounds for further action if the behaviour continues. The advice I can give you if anything like this occurs again is to discuss the situation before acting, either with me, or with uninvolved admins on one of the noticeboards. In all your future blocks, you should be a neutral party and only make blocks with a deep foundation in policy. If I was you, I would concentrate on other admin areas and only block users where you are 100% certain a block is required such as for a vandalism only account. I hope this gives you some advice and will help you when making block decisions in the future. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that makes more sense as a rationale, and wish this had been clearly pointed out yesterday. In all fairness, I was not changing my story, but changing my justification. Initially, I thought I was being harassed by an out of control bot, then discovered after the block and some exchange that it was a user making reverts and posting the templates. The length and similarity of both user names, the similarity of the two "user" talk pages, in combination with the lack of any response communicated except by template reinforced my misconception. I did try to contact the user/bot, and just wish I had receieved a personal reply that explained the situation to me instead of impersonal templates. That way, I could have had a discussion, and would have learned there was in fact a user on-line and not just a bot. It's nigh impossible to have a discussion if the other party only speaks Template. I do understand now that people perceieved me as "changing my story", and thus the ensuing discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The names are similar, and Betacommands bot has proved controversial so I believe you blocked in good faith, thinking it was the bot. It was a poorly handled situation, Betacommand shouldn't have been templating you like he did and it just went down hill from there. With respect to changing your justification, I think the best thing you could have done would have been to appologise for the block once you realised it wasn't a bot you blocked - there was little need for you sto state WP:HARASS, it made the situation worse because then it appeared you blocked because you held a grudge against been targetted, hence why I talk about you blocking in a content dispute above. I think you understand now why there were serious concerns yesterday and I'm in no doubt that this will be a huge learning experience for you. We all make mistakes, it's often best to just bite our lips and admit them. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!!

I've been working on algae, but I messed up one of the references in the intro. You'll see it immediately. Please help! --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it temporarily, but it can probably be done better. At least the big red letters are gone. I'm talking about the reference after "Algae are paraphyletic and polyphyletic..."--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Prodego ^talk 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was panicking :) I tried almost exactly what you did, but I messed it up somehow.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD for taxobox categories

I just wanted to notify everyone that participated in the original CfD and the deletion review that there is a new CfD to reverse the proposed changes to the taxobox categories. Justin ^chat 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 19 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Association for Plant Taxonomy, 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.

--Carabinieri (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks also for the puzzle on my talkpage, though I'll be honest that I haven't had a chance to work on it yet! I'll definitely take a look when I get some more time though. Unless you'd like to give a hint to speed things along?  :) --Elonka 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Transposition system, eh? Alright, hmm (goes into brainstorming mode)... so word breaks don't look natural, so the spaces are probably mixed with the rest of the text. The numbers are interesting, 6 and 8, I wonder how those tie in. Maybe a railfence? Or a grid system, maybe 6x8? No, too many letters for that. Heck, could be an 8-tiered Christmas tree, or a spiral, pull it off by columns, or rows... Lots of possible combos... Maybe if I found a long word and then tried to line things up? How about context? It's certainly going to be English... I wonder if the word "Congratulations" is in there somewhere....

I'll print it out to take on the plane on my way to family Xmas (though can't guarantee I'll have time to look at it, family Christmases being what they are ;) If I still can't get it by after New Year's, I'll ping you for another hint! Have good holidays yourself, --Elonka 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Evolution

Hi, thank you for your constructive criticisms on the Introduction to Evolution article. I am somewhat pleased with my orchid addition to counter the lack of plants. Give it a read if you get a chance. Also, I added variations in maize to artificial selection. Stumbled across an interesting web site on preserving genetic variations in corn. We stuck on necks out and went for the F/A status after making the edits. The commentary page should make for some interesting reading. Wish us luck! Cheers. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 21 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Couch, 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.

--Royalbroil 01:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On 21 December 2007, a fact from the article Climate of Georgia (U.S. state), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Did you know? was updated. On 21 December 2007, a fact from the article Joseph Rogers, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 06:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I've signed up to review IAPT, nothing much is llikely to happen for a few days due to the festivities, but at least it's on the list. Merry Christmas, Jimfbleak (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If there turn out to be problems that I might be able to fix, please let me know. I have some vacation time this week. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you do that?

Hey, thanks for the additional Colura refs. Appreciate it. I'll get around to expanding on the genus page perhaps after we tackle the collaboration project. The purpose of my message, though, is this. I got the idea to check out the WP:PLANTS assessment and noticed an odd unassessed-class/mid-importance article. Did a quick AWB intersection of the categories to find out that it was the Victoria amazonica article. Flipped on over to the talk page and... you had assessed the class three minutes earlier. And that same thing happened before, where you were getting to those talk pages and assessing the oddities faster than I. How do you do it?? :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You were just slowed down by running category intersections. ;) I just went to the bot-generated page where the list of stubs ends and the unassessed articles list begins. All the assessed / unassessed articles are listed in a regular and predictable sequence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! That never occurred to me. I was beginning to wonder if that rustling in the rhododendrons outside was perhaps something other than the wind... Thanks! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that |attention= yes really works! cygnis insignis 12:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

[edit] IAPT

I actually thought when i got up this morning that my changes had been too interventionist, so I've restored the text prior to my all edits, and commented on the talk page. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosauroidea

Glad to see you've decided to take up this article, WP:DINO looks forward to your comments! Sheep81 (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

[edit] Re: DYK

I protected the page itself, didnt' realize that didn't work. I'll go and take care of uploading it then. Wizardman 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Knitta on Delancey M-cropped.jpg

Yo, what name is this image on Commons? Because it was deleted while still linked in an article but the name is different. Lara❤Love 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, my bad. I didn't realize it was a temporary thing. I like the cropped version better, so I actually added it to the article when it was up on the main page. Then I went to the article today and it was a red link. So yea, I uploaded it to Commons. It's all good now. Lara❤Love 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IATP

I note that you have made no recent edits to IATP. Are you happy for me to review it as it stands? My intention is to clear this within the next two days anyway. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not entirely. I'm making edits off-line and trying to find additional references. One of the concerns you raised was that the references came almost exclusively from IAPT publications. I've been trying to find additional references not published by IAPT, but so far have not been successful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mindless template pasting

Do you really want to be part of a project that evaluates and gives recommendations and ranks and declares the importance of articles without having read the content? I don't to want to be involved with a group of people who work that way -- but I am new here. Perhaps you can sum up the advantages there are to being part of a project like that so that I can better understand the situation that put you there and keeps you working within the project.

I really like the upload page for commons uploads. It says It's all about freedom'. Have you seen that? Thanks -- Carol 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. That's why I read the article before I assign it an importance ranking. Please do not vandalize projects just because you do not see their value. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not how the project works with the articles that I am writing. Perhaps the next time I remove the Plant Project template, a handwritten evaluation can go there. It would be proof that the project reads the contents before evaluating. All I have right now is proof that they don't and proof that they have spent more time reading and writing their own guidlines and knowlege of where they are. No wonder there is an idea that the readership are mentally impaired or not capable of reading -- it self descriptive of the project?

Is word counting the same as reading? Also, here are the questions that I asked in easier to follow detail:

• Do you really want to continue be part of a project that evaluates and gives recommendations and ranks and declares the importance of articles without having read the content?
• Can you sum up the advantages there are to being part of a project like that?

wiktionary on vandalism: Needless damage or destruction of property, usually someone else's property or common or shared property. To me, if a project is not reading the content while making evaluations and self-citing their own work to explain themselves it is the destruction of a common or shared property as the credibility is not there with them. They know more about themselves than what they paste their little advertisements upon. Perhaps you cannot say what being a part of a project gets for you because all it gets is a colorful template with built in urls to a bunch of people who perhaps don't read the content of the pages that they are spamming with their pretty little self-referencing advertisment.

Please, explain this a different way. Use the definition of vandalism and not just the word. -- Carol 06:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosauroidea GA Review

This is just a reminder that you tagged this article with the {{GAReview}} template on 12/18/2007, which was 15 days ago. Please finish up your review, or remove the tag so that someone else can review it. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. I do careful reviews, and it can take me a while. There are plenty of other articles not being reviewed by anyone at all. You may pick one of those, if you like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block on Wiktionary

I wanted to make an account on Wiktionary, but apparently my IP address is blocked from editing there. It says "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by EncycloPetey. The reason given is this: Vandalism You may contact EncycloPetey or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences. If you have an account, you can still edit your preferences when you are blocked.

Your IP address is 24.70.95.203." I don't really understand, I have never vandalized anything on any Wiki. So, do you think you might be able to help me, please? Shmooshkums (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That is likely a shared IP address, then, so the vandalism was made by another user for the same IP address. The block is scheduled to end today anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Shmooshkums (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hello, Petey, I'm just a random editor who's seeking advice. I was curious to know if it's fine to quote from the same online article in the reference. To maybe help explain what I'm doing, I'm currently working on the article Akshardham (Delhi) in my sandbox thing (as to be able to work on cleaning up the article in peace, as such), and if you look at the article in my sandbox, you'll notice I have a lot of quotations going on in the 'References' section. Most of the references are from the same article, but it's fairly huge... so I was curious to know if it's fine, really (being just one article).

Also, if you have time, would you be willing to briefly go over the work I've done to the article, everything that's referenced is the work I've done (even on the official 'Akshardham' article). By the way, I picked you randomly from the list of Admins, sorry if it's a problem, bro. I just wanna make sure I'm heading the right way for a REALLY GOOD article (Featured, if one day possible). I appreciate any help giveable, and thanks for at least reading. -- Harish - 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to ask for advice with this particular article. I do have broad interests, but the rich history of India is a subject I know little about. You may have more success asking someone at the Wikipedia:WikiProject India or one of its subprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history or Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's cool. I didn't mean to push Hinduism on you, sorry. I didn't think my questions would come off as needing Hinduism to know, so my bad. Thanks for pointing me in more appropriate direction, I appreciate it! -- Harish - 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, actually whilst I'm here - I have some advice I'd like to ask, and it's about referencing again, as well as images. Though, this shouldn't really require any knowledge of Hinduism. I tried looking into both, but here's the issues I couldn't wrap my head around; 1) There's a news piece done by CNN, but they've only put it up on their website as a video (direct cut of their telecast) so the news is what they've shown.... but I wasn't sure if that's referable or not, and how it should be done. Question 2) If an image is on the official website, is it possible to upload that image by calling it promo? Or some other way of getting around it...? I'm guessing the answer to the latter will be obvious, but thought you may know some tricks as an Admin =P -- Harish - 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of my work is in botany and taxonomy, which seldom involves video material, so I've never had to deal with that issue. Frankly, I don't know whom to ask either, since the people I collaborate with are working in related areas. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, just wanted to say Thank You. You led me down the right direction so I'm getting the article help I need. Appreciate it, bro. -- Harish - 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Respect towards other editors

Please show more respect in your comments towards other editors. You called my section on the use of ideology in emblems and coats of arms "nonsense". I am a highly educated person who in his younger days wrote some highly respected books. I do not type nonsense. The material I included was directly stated in the sources. I think you did not spend enough time researching the sources. At an earlier point you had accused my sources of being less than reliable, while they were from European museums! I think you have a personal viewpoint here that is getting expressed through your lack of respect and frankly your comments are bordering on rudeness. Please show respect for the thoughts of others and if you do have a valid point, please argue it "clearly" and "logically" on the talk page in several paragraphs before you suddenly remove a well researched section that has taken much work by just calling it nonsense. If you have a logical point, I will be glad to debate it and research it further. Research is what I do well and I will be glad to debate the point in acivilized manner. Thank you for showing more respect in the future. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It it were well-researched, it would not make claims not in the source material, woiuld not be POV, and would be placed on the appropriate page. The information is misrepresented and inappropriate for the article. Some of the sources you claim are from museums are in fact from travel sites about museums. You need to show more respect for your sources and the information they present. I do not have a personal viewpoint here, I am simply protecting the integrity of Wikpipedia from faulty scholarship of the sort found in Victorian treatises on heraldry. Most of those treatises have since been debunked. I have provided four solid arguments as nails in the coffin of your POV on the article's talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Unblock my Account

In August 2007 you blocked my Wiktionary account, alleging that I was repeatedly violating copyright laws. It is now January 2008 but you have yet to rescind the permanent block on my account. I have learned my lesson and hope that you will not continue to punish me. Andy85719 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the response I gave you the last time you asked to be unblocked:

The extended block was only made after additional investigation and consultation with another sysop. We found that this was not an isolated incident on your part. You had inserted copyrighted material from on-line source into several articles over an extended period covering several days, not a single article accidentally as a result of storm issues. This means that you have not only violated copyright law, but that you have falsely claimed otherwise. You should know that information displayed on copyrighted websites is in fact copyrighted. Your persisted claim that the problem was powerloss from a storm is flatly untrue. You are blocked. --EncycloPetey 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked because you violated copyright law repeatedly, and lied about it when confronted. Wiktionary takes a very dim view of repeated and deliberate copyright violation, and lying about it only made your case worse. You will not be unblocked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't know it was a copyright violation to right down the meaning of something. I'm sorry. Wouldn't you give me just one more chance? If I happen to violate copyright law again after I am now informed, you are completely justified in blocking me. The story about the storm was true and I was under the impression that that incident is what you were talking about. Obviously I was mistaken. It was not my intention to lie. You could put me on extended probation, send me warnings every day, warn others to watch me carefully. I just want another chance. Concerning the copyright violations, I now realize that that material was copyrighted and that I should have been more circumspect and check that. I did violate the copyright law indeed. I do not deny it. I admit it. I was wrong. Ignorantia juris non excusat. However, why would I deliberately violate copyright law knowing that I could be caught? I wouldn't and I swear it was unintentional. I have learned my lesson. It is crystal clear. Please!!!! I don't like begging. Andy85719 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then don't beg. You have your answer. It may not be the one you like, but it is the only answer you're going to get. This was not a one-time violation of copyright, it was the latest in a string of such violations. You repeatedly pasted copyrighted material into Wiktionary over many days. You must now live with the consequences of your actions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the blocking policy, even repeated offenders as you have unjustly labelled me only recieve a one month block. Yes it might have been repeated but I was only warned once and then blocked. Had I been promptly warned, I would have ceased. The lack of a warning made me believe that it was okay. Is this some type of vendetta? Are you trying to prove a point? If so, this is also a violation of the Wiktionary blocking policy. Just because you wield power doesn't mean you have to throw books at people. If you continue to repeatedly block me then I will be forced to appeal. I thought you would be civil and understanding. Instead I have found you unwielding and unreasonable. Why can't you just give me another chance? Maybe you have become drunk with your power. I don't know, but I'm sure that this shall resolved eventually. Andy85719 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken about what the blocking policy says. It clearly says that infinite blocks are given for plagiarism. That is what happened. It is not I who has violated the civility policy, it is you for dumping personal abuse here on my talk page. If you continue to do so, I shall complain here about your behavior. You have the answer to your question, so you do not need to reply.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Botany templates

Hi EncycloPetey My apologies for causing you extra work today. You say that is not what the template is for, but perhaps you could explain what the template's intended purpose actually is, because if it is only applicable to the topics on the template it seems a little self-serving. I saw it as a way to link botany articles (some of which may be specialist, and possibly arrived at by linking from articles outside botany) to some of the major topics in Botany in a way that is consistent and can be modified uniformly across the templated articles simply by editing the template. I suppose my agenda as a lecturer in Botany is to make it easier for students to connect back to the core of the subject, which is otherwise quite hard to find.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The template lists and links between on the various "top"-priority Plants pages that are considered "Core" topics in botany. It should only appear on those pages, not on pages about other topics or about the various genera, fossils, etc. I recommend using categories for the purpose you have in mind, and making sure that the article mentions one of the key ideas in its text, with a link to that article. Linking to the core topics is done with wikilinks. The Botany template is designed to navigate among these core topics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. perhaps what I had in mind is not practical. I will consider using categories, though it seems a high-maintenance approach. Meanwhile, could you outline the principles governing the content of the botany template. What input does the average editor have to the selection of core topics? How many topics are allowed, etc. Regards, Plantsurfer (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The rating of topics is done informally through WP:PLANTS. The initial list was taken from the Assessment lists of WP:PLANTS. Chenges should probably be discussed there, but the list should be relatively complete. One principle was to limit each box of the template to a single line for the typical computer screen. Thus, the template does not cover every possible topic (that would make the list too long), so it hits the "top" article for each major subject. For example, it lists vascular tissue, so it does not need to list xylem or phloem. The iea was to skim across the top-level of topics, from which other articles could be reached. It is possible to create additional templates for more specific areas, such as the one for biological tissues {{Biological tissue}}. Similar templates could be made for other specific areas within botany. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Can you update the main page? (asked of 3 people, who will be first?) Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was off-line, but it seems Royalbroil took care of promoting the next update. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox WP:ORGZ

Sorry about that. However, I am not playing around, there were issues in the display of the box that I am trying to solve. Please indicate where it is displaying incorrectly and I will try to solve it Thank you Daoken 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Do you have a list of where the old boxes are displayed so I correct them all? The new layout allows better display. I will recover the changes I have done (took me most of the day) and after that I will update all existing boxes, do you agree? Daoken 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too many hours at the screen...I think I found the problem, I will put the new version now corrected and test it. I will then check for errors at all existing pages that having the old version, could be affected. Let you know in a few minutes if I corrected the glitch.Daoken 15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a code problem, it is solved now. It was good that you saw it. I will continue checking just in case but I think it is fixed. Thank you for the timely alert. Daoken 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garlic Mustard

Hello, I have seen you working on plant articles and you seem knowledgeable. I was wondering if you could help me with the Garlic Mustard article. I deleted a sentence that claimed that self-fertilized offspring are genetically identical. This is very wrong since all the gametes of a given individual are not identical (due to crossover, random assortment, etc.), and contain different alleles. Therefore, the genes may recombine in a number of ways even though it is self-fertilization, since the sperm and ovule are not necessarily identical. How could inbreeding depression occur in self-fertilizing plants if they were merely "cloning" themselves (since inbreeding depression necessitates a change in gene diversity over generations)? Self-fertilization has been described as merely intense inbreeding, and since it is sexual in nature, it necessarily does not give rise to identical offspring.

A user reverted my deletion, and (s)he has a source, but I believe it is self-evident that this source is incorrect. Do you agree? --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Obligate self-fertilization (or even a situation where self-fertilization is the norm) will tend over time to lead to homozygosity and fixation of alleles in the offspring strains. So, while an individual self-fertilizing plant may not have all its offspring genetically identical, in the long run species that continue to self-fertilize will end up homozygous for all loci and then will produce seed sets of all identical offspring. While this process is happening, inbreeding depression will occur. Once fixation has set in a particular breeding line, inbreeding depression can no longer happen, and at that point all the self-ferilized offspring will be identical. This is of course not counting the occasional mutation, transposon, etc., but an individual that is homozygous at all loci will no longer produce genetic variety as a result of standard meiotic recombination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vascular plant

Yes, you're right. I mistakenly thought bryophytes were vascular. Thanks for quickly reverting it. I presume you'll have no objection if I try to work the reference into the bryophyte and liverwort pages. Zamphuor (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. Note however that the Marchantiophyta page has the earliest occurrence info in the "fossil range" line of the taxobox. So, you would need to make the change there. But in yor edit, please preserve the mid-Devonian reference in the article text, since that is the date for the oldest liverwort macrofossil. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bold text

Sorry, I thought that was the rule, as seen in other pages. Helladios (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] syn

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, I quote "Syn- (sin), prefix, latinized form of Gr. xxx (= xxx prep. with), together, similarly, alike". Other senses in which it can be used include bring together, group, congregate, join, unite. No mention of plus, which is I submit, not quite the same concept.Plantsurfer (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the scholarly standard for Ancient Greek. It does not give the meaning "similar" or "alike", and would not because those are adjectival senses, not prepositional. The word συν is a preposition primarily meaning "with, together". This is closer in meaning to the original "plus", which is why I reverted. There is no indication there that the Ancient Greek root word ever meant "alike; the same". Since the gloss in the page for synonym is for the Greek word, it should be given its Greek definition, not a gloss from an English dictionary. See also wikt:syn- --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monoicous

Thanks for your remarks on my page. Much appreciated. Do you think the expert template on Monoicous is still necessary? Also, I note that Plant Cell has no Botany template attached despite being a topic on the Botany template. Accident or design? RegardsPlantsurfer (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think the expert tage on Monoicous is necessary. The article still needs work, but not as badly as when the template was added. As far as Plant cell not having the template, yes that is a mistake. Nice catch! --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plants

Hi,

Thanks for your comments regarding some recent edits. I was greatly concerned that I may have been so wide of the mark, so I've carefully reread the papers -- perhaps I am missing their point, but I couldn't quite pin down how they backed up what you suggested. I've provided a couple of quotes from the papers below, which I have endeavoured not to take out of context;

In Kenrick & Crane 1997, Box 1

...diversity in extinct Cooksonia and similar early fossils (such as Tortilicaulis, Uskiella, Caia) suggests that simple
early land plants (once grouped as rhyniophytes) are an unnatural assemblage. Some Cooksonia species may be among the
precursors to vascular plants (protracheophytes), whereas others are vascular plants apparently allied to the clubmoss lineage.

I took the "other vascular plants" to refer to other vascular plants he'd mentioned in that paragraph. Presumably the book of the same year, which I've not been able to access, states otherwise?

In the abstract of Gerrinne et al.:

Several characters of Tortilicaulis and Psilophyton (morphology of the spores; position, shape and sinistral torsion of their 
sporangia) as well as hypotheses about their respective modes of dehiscence suggest the existence of a link between rhyniophytoids
such  as Tortilicaulis, and the Trimerophytina.

And in their concluding paragraph:

Until the nature of the conducting cells of Tortilicaulis are elucidated, the affinities of the genus will remain conjectural.
Nevertheless, it is suggested that Tortilicaulis might be ancestral to the Trimerophytina.

This paper, as well as many others, also makes reference to the ornamentation of their spores.

Regarding the microphyll question, it seems that the concept of a microphyll is somewhat bogus. In the sense I'd been introduced to the term, horsetails have only a single vascular trace, and are therefore mycrophylls by that definition. By your definition they are megaphylls. This reference includes a discussion which I will soon bring in to the articles to clarify points.

I take your point on the Equisetum intro; it originally gave the molecular data a little too much POV.

Thanks for drawing my attention to all these points.

All the best

Verisimilus T 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's not the definition of microphyll which the article mentioned above provides. I've summarised the points it makes here.

• We are clearly talking about different Kenrick and Crane (1997)s. As I think I mentioned, I don't have ready access to the book, and was referring to the Kenrick and Crane 1997 that I referenced in the article (the nature paper).

• The reference I included in the Tortilicaulis article mentions the spore morphology in several places. For example: in table 1,

"Microfossil": Tortilicaulis oflheus; "spores": Crassitate: all surfaces with grana.

In section 5, "In situ spores", "Exceptions are the few cases where morphologically distinct bifurcating sporangia are shown to possess the same spores as unbranched ones (e.g. Tortilicaulis ofieus; Edwards et al., 1994).

In section 6 (p170):

although in a few cases the same genus
has been recorded in different types of sporangia
[e.g. Aneurospora in Cooksonia and Salopella;
miospores with microgranulate ornament in
Tortilicaulis (Plate II, 7, 8)

Their spores are further referenced in the abstract of Gerrinne et al. (this time with emphasis)

Several characters of Tortilicaulis and Psilophyton (morphology of the spores; position, shape and sinistral torsion of their 
sporangia) as well as hypotheses about their respective modes of dehiscence suggest the existence of a link between rhyniophytoids
such  as Tortilicaulis, and the Trimerophytina.

I am also more than happy to provide you with copies of any articles you don't have access to; do let me know and I can e-mail you PDFs.

All the best, Verisimilus T 11:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organism, Ecosystem and Biome

I wonder if you can help me with this. On 29 December I removed several large blocks of text from the Organism article because they were superfluous to it, but I copied them to talk:Ecosystem, talk:Biome (my assessment of the appropriate homes of these sections) and also to talk:Organism in the hope that editors of those pages would pick up the baton and incorporate them. However, there has not been a word of response from any users to this move. I feel that these sections may be useful, and I am writing to ask that you cast your eye over them and let me have a view as to whether they should be discarded or incorporated. If the latter, is there any way the sections can be relocated while retaining their edit history??Plantsurfer (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entoloma sinuatum update

It is insanely hard to find distribution - how do you feel about the article now? I was musing on tossing it up at GA again.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad interwiki on monoicous

This edit [8] added a link from a page about bryophyte biology to a page about flowers. The two articles are not about the same content, nor will they be. The English equivalent for Spanish monoica is monoecious not monoicous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, right, but bot will continue to add the wrong interwikis, de: has only one page for both notion and that page link to es: page. Monoecious is a redirect to Plant sexuality so es: article can't be linked here since es:Sexualidad vegetal exists. Perhaps you should add a {{nobots}} to monoicous but this template can't disable a specific bot operation like interwiki. Phe-bot (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mosses

There is a lot of confusion about the naming of bryophyte taxons. Please tread carefully and ensure You are on the side of the truth in these matters. --Etxrge (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. As a specialist in bryophyte higher-level classification, I think I am quite capable of understanding the nomenclature. Please be aware that there are many different meanings of "Bryopsida". The one being used on the German Wikipedia is not the same as the one being used here on the English Wikipedia (or most other Wikipedias). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments like I am a specialist in bryophyte higher-level classification should never be used in Wikipedia. --Etxrge (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Argument? What "argument" are you referring to? As a response to comments with phrases like "the side of truth" and with presumptive cautioning, I think I made a very fair response. You presumed to tell me "there is a lot of confusion", and I explained my background and that I am aware of the confusion. I suggest that, in future, you not respond to statements of fact by making pronouncements that they "should never be used on Wikipedia". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scadoxus

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Scadoxus, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Scadoxus puniceus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is observant, but the "warning" message is not necessary. I am in the middle of splitting the Scadoxus puniceus article, pulling out the information about the genus from the species page where it was put mistakenly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vermiform

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vermiform, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Vermiform. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but why are you telling me this? Shouldn't you send this to the people who wrote the article? Also, shouldn't you consider Transwiki to Wiktionary before outright deleting it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary content of the article is already in Wiktionary, and you were an editor of that article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] plant stubs

{{Myristicaceae-stub}} all done. :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Last set: The genus Schefflera is currently in Category:Apiales stubs, but should be stubbed as {{Araliaceae-stub}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

...and on an unrelated note: why is Sarraceniaceae still a stub!? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Schefflera are being sorted right now. As for Sarraceniaceae, I figure it's the same reason why Stylidiaceae, Droseraceae, and Lentibulariaceae are rather small: there's really not that much to discuss about the family that's not genus-specific. It's on my agenda to eventually expand those... There are precious few of us working on the carnivorous plants - I'm trying to get us a good groundwork established by finishing off stubs for all the Utricularia, User:Mgiganteus1 works mostly with Nepenthes, and unfortunately school and other things have kept User:NoahElhardt from contributing much. After I finish the stubs on the Utrics, I figure I might start on Pinguicula and then move on to Drosera. Lots of work! I'll make a note, though, to keep an eye out for info that can be added at the family level. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my watchlist

Before I read what you wrote about my terminology ramblings, I saw quite a few tribus being added to taxoboxen recently!! thanks -- carol (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] villous vs villus

Here is another word that seems to have diverged. As villous it means "Abounding in, or covered with, fine hairs, or a woolly substance; shaggy with soft hairs; nappy" and is only in Webster 1913 (not also in wordnet), but here it is a redirection to villus which is in WordNet. In Webster, the word villus has two meanings one botanical and the other anatomical and in wordnet it has only one meaning which is anatomical. All of that makes me want to only use the word villous in my articles.

I really didn't like the way that glabrous here links to an article about hairless naked people either. -- carol (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The diffeence is that villus is the Latin spelling, but villous is the English spelling. The -us / -ous difference in adjectives is a pretty standard difference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be a good time to make the word glabrus then? -- carol (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That spelling would only be used as the second part of a scientific name (in Latin) or a Latin diagnosis, since that is a Latinate spelling. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Euryale ferox

On 2 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Euryale ferox, 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) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prokaryotic cell

hi i wanted to ask you if you could have a look to the new version i did of the prokaryotic cell. if everything is ok i will ask people to delist the last version and feature this one. :) -LadyofHats (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Thanks - an error, I was pasting and got confused.Osborne (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tamil wiktionary

hi, i checked both the pages you mentioned. surprisingly, they give the same count for me. May i request you to clear the cache in your page and see if they tally? or you may also refer the official wiktionary statistics page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary#Statistics . thanks--Ravishankar (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gronophyllum

I wrote a short bit for Gronophyllum and while searching for external links found this which indicates pretty clearly the inclusion into Hydriastele. As the publishing is a relatively recent one it is not reflected in much of the literature. Shall I scrap the Grono or go ahead and create it? Also, I see you are adding tribal delineations to the taxocontent. Do you recommend my adding them to taxoboxes or do you intend on working through the family systematically? And one other question - At least one book I have lists most of the original publications like Griffth, Calcutta Journal of Natural History 5:22 1844 etc. Is referencing for the original description a good thing to include in any given article, and if so, should I just find a reasonable place to insert it like any other inline citation? And on the same note, many of these same description entries are not just a simple nature journal reference, in cases where somebody named something one thing and somebody else came and corrected them or reclassified or whatever so you get something like (Beccari) Burret, Botanischen Gartens and Museums zu Berlin 15:7333. 1942 Lectotype E. conferta (Griffth) Burret (Salacca conferta Griffith) (see H.E. Moore 1963c) Salacca section Eleiodoxa Beccari, Annals of the Royal Botanical Garden, Calcutta 12(2):71 1918 - and since I seem to have misplaced by botanical notation-to-English dictionary I cant tell who actually did what and when. Do you know of a good link to help explain such cases, or better yet, an interpreter in the Tampa Bay area?Mmcknight4 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My inclination based on the link you provided (especially since it's in the Kew Bulletin) is to go with the new definition of a broader Hydriastele. Yes, referencing the original publication of any name is always good for an article. It's the one case where adding a reference gets an exception to the usual rule of "you have to have seen the publication yourself." We want to provide the useful information of where a name or combination was first published. This is usually added as a reference footnote in the taxobox by the authority. Sorry, I don't know a good interpreter anywhere in Florida or neighboring states. The particular example you've provided is:

(Original author) New combination author, place of publication. Date Lectotype (with similar information on publication, etc.)

You needn't include the lectotpye information as part of the cite itself, but I'm not sure how (or where) best to include the information in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much - just wished I had seen the link before I wrote the article. If I create any stubs shall I include tribal ranks or will you get around to it? There seems to be subfamilies, tribes and subtribes and I didn't know if all were worthy of inclusion.Mmcknight4 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Novels Collaboration of the Month

You supported A Farewell to Arms, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history

I'm not sure you have completely restored Posidonia, would you mind having another look. cygnis insignis 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had missed seeing the most recent revision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liverwort

That is not correct. Liverwort points to a separate disambiguation page. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I guess that has changed since the last time I looked at it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a new article for DYK

Hello, EncycloPetey, there is a new article on a Chinese athlete Jin Jing. We want to push this article onto the "Did you know" on the main page. Could you give us some comments on the talk page of that article? How should we improve that article? If it's a good one, could you please help us put this article onto the "Did you know"? The question could be '[Jin Jing|Who] is called the "Smiling Angel in Wheelchair" by Chinese people?' Thanks!--Supportjinjing (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects with PLANTS banners

Hey 'Petey. Not sure if you remember our conversation from a while ago on page redirects with talk pages that have the PLANTS project tag on them. I genereted the list here in your user name space. I finally got around to fixing them and I'm about to finish (I have about 30 or so left). Do you mind if I just delete the page after I complete the list? I've also created a longer, updated list that duplicates many of these at User:BotanyBot/sandbox2. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. I haven't had time to deal with the list (busy on Wiktionary and offline), so I'm glad to hear you went ahead and tackled the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All done with the list! I've been busy, too. Just started a new job and haven't had much time to dedicate here, but I wanted to finish that one. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary block

please unblock ip 71 i mean on wiktionary. --71.254.97.20 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? The entire edit history for that IP consists of very strange entry requests. Semper noted that your edits were disruptive. Why not take this time while blocked to read about Wiktionary and how to contribute. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:SHORTFIX

Hi. Some of us have been trying clear the category CAT:SHORTFIX. Because your user page uses older syntax for the template {{shortcut}} three times it appears in that category. Could you edit your protected user page so that:

{{Shortcut|[[WP:COTW]]}} ––> {{Shortcut|WP:COTW}}

{{Shortcut|[[WP:NOVCOTM]]}} -–> {{Shortcut|WP:NOVCOTM}}

{{shortcut|[[WP:PLANTS]]}} -–> {{shortcut|WP:PLANTS}}

In other words just remove the double brackets. Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DOI bot edits

Hi,

Yes, the removal was intentional. The URLs are identical to the landing pages of the DOIs. Since a DOI is a stable link, the url link is redundant. As it is prone to "link rot" - i.e. breaking and needing fixing - the bot removes it if it is 100% sure it is redundant. Thanks for pointing them out, though!

Smith609 Talk 14:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning regarding references

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Please do not remove requests for references -- stub pages are no exception from the rule that all Wikipedia articles require references published by reputable third party sources. Thank you for your understanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. You are duplicating templates unnecessarily. There is not rule stating that stubs must have additional templates reiterating what the stub template indicates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your edit of 2007 August 14

I'm finally getting into the revision history of User:Arkuat/Taxonomy far enough to get around to thanking you for your edit of 2007 August 14. Sorry it took so long. --arkuat (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Algae

There should be a mistake somewhere. Second time I made sure that the way table was viewed did not changed. What browser are you using? I did checked page under FF 2.0.0.14 and IE 8 Beta 1(IE 7 compatibility mode). The first time clean up function had a bug, which ruined table, that bug supposed to be fixed in development version of AWB, the one I'm working with. As for Antarctica capitalization, I never meant to fix because it a binomial name there. Unfortunately, AWB do have annoying bug, even if user reject spell correction, edit summary still report all corrections as being applied to the article. It was reported by multiple people and, hopefully, sooner or later will be fixed. TestPilot 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Np:) Because spell checker want to capitalize it. But since it name of a spice, Durvillaea antarctica, I reject that change. Here is an actual bug description and discussion. TestPilot 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot error

Thanks. This is a tough one to work around, as the error lies with the publisher's database. I'll think about what I can do. Smith609 Talk 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andreaceae

Thanks for that. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More moss gathering

Greetings from Scotland. I have an amateur interest in animal life and contributed Fauna of Scotland a while ago. Recently I decided that the absence of Flora of Scotland was disagreeable and started that too. I knew it was going to be an uphill struggle as I know very little about plants. I therefore came as some surprise to discover that our hills and valleys are teeming with bryophytes of (apparently) international importance. I am still struggling with the article, although I think it is starting to take shape. In writing it it became clear that the non-vasculars section was going to fill up with red links and I am doing my best to reduce this - hence my recent request for assistance. I am afraid Shaw & Goffinet isn't easily available to me and moss taxonomy is clearly a tricky subject so, I may continue to grope around in the metaphorical undergrowth for a while. I have now added Hylocomium splendens and Bryum dixonii is on its way. I realise it may be something of an imposition but are you happy for me to mention these in the hope that you will take a look at the Taxoboxes? I'll probably end up creating about a half dozen more. It's fine if you are to busy of course. Regards, Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The happy band of wiki-mosses is joined by Hygrohypnum styriacum, Didymodon mamillosus & Marsupella arctica, who seek advice regarding their parentage. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where does moss grow?

Is that stuff in the back of the refrigerator moss? I expect moss to be green and perhaps that growth will achieve that color -- I will just wait to see what it matures into....

What brought me here was that I wanted to thank you for assessing an article I was working on. I don't like assessing articles I started or expanded and the arguments I avoid between me the starter or the expander (not the gtk kind) and me the assessor are dull and worthless. -- carol (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hylocomium splendens

On 22 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hylocomium splendens, which you recently nominated. 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) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Keep up the good work! Angelic Raiment (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperative venture

I was surprised to find that you reverted my latest edit to Equisetopsida. Firstly, because of the specific cautions against reverting generally, stated in both WP:Etiquette and Help:Reverting. Secondly, because my edit was an attempt at compromise, responding to concerns you raised in your previous edit comment; and that I explained such in my edit comment and, further, expressly suggested a path of negotiation. By contrast, your reversion summary stated that my contribution "adds nothing". Respectfully, I do not find that this embodies either the spirit or specifics of WP:Etiquette.

The goal of my edit was to add context to the introduction to better facilitate understanding and appreciation of the subject, specifically evolutionary context. I have made another edit in an additional attempt to pursue this end, and look forward to a collaborative process reflecting the benefits of collective contribution that have made Wikipedia so successful. ENeville (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All that you added to the text was that the class was "ancient". First, this is true of all classes of plants. Second, "ancient" means many different things in different contexts. The word thus added no useful information or context to the page. You have therefore not achieved your stated goal of adding context.

Your subsequent addition of "primordial" is (if anything) a worse addition. These were not the first plants In fact, the Equisetopsida first appeared more than 100 million years after the earliest evidence of land plants, so they cannot qualify as "primordial". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that you have again reverted an edit I made. I would also note the complete absence of pursuit of compromise in your response above. It is, rather, a brief lecture on failings. I again refer you to WP:Etiquette, particularly given the additional implied weight of your actions carried as administrator.

While I do appreciate that you added material addressing the origin of Equisetopsida, this is not the same as developing context in the introduction as I described. "Ancient" may be an imperfect word, but it's better than nothing. I have made efforts to adapt to your concerns. I look forward to the same from you. ENeville (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how does one compromise over the addition/removal of a single word in an article? Your responses do not permit any option for compromise, because they are merely lectures and chiding. You have yet to express at all what content it is that you are trying to convey with the addition of the one word you are concerned about. You have said you want to "add context", but what context exactly is missing from the article? You have not told me. And as I stated before, I disagree that adding that single word is better than nothing. Consider that not having a weasel word is, by convention, better than having it. Adding words is not always an improvement.

Now, contrary to your claims, you did not make efforts to adapt to my concerns. Thus far, you have not even acknowledged an undersatnding of my concerns. You have simply chided me for reverting the single-word additions that you made, and then proceeded to make the exact same edit as the first time. You are not making any effort to collaborate, but are simply pushing a particular vague word. I refer you now to the very same documents you have linked to in your comments above: "If your material is reverted, don't take it personally. Not every fact, detail, and nuance belongs in an encyclopedia." This is particularly true for reverts when a single word is added that conveys no additional context.

So, why is it that saying the Equisetopsida are "ancient" is so important to you? The Fish are not labelled as "ancient", neither are the Lizards or even the Vertebrates. The Mollusca and Animals are not described as "ancient". So, what makes the Equisetopsida ancient that doesn't make these other groups ancient? Consider also that Ancient Rome and Mesopotamia are described as "ancient". Do you maintain that the Equisetopsida are of an age comparable with the cultures of Rome and Mesopotamia? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You raise many points, some with which I might take issue. In an effort to find resolution, though, I will endeavor to focus on the primary issues. As I said initially, I think that it's valuable to reference the evolutionary context in the introduction. Doing so with one word would be ideal, compositionally. As you have concerns with my word choice, please do offer alternatives. ENeville (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you what to use just one word to say what? I cannot offer alternatives if you cannot express to me what it is you are trying to say. I asked you above what you wish to say, but you have not answered that question. You say you want to "reference the evolutionary context", but what information is that? There are many, many aspects of evolution, including time and place of origin, closest relatives, primitive character states, synapomorphies and innovations for the group, morphological and ecological divergance from related clades, gradual versus punctuated evolution, hypothesized advantages over similar taxa, and hyoptheses about the environmental conditions that led to the clade's diversification. I do not know how to communiate all that information with a single word, nor have you told me what aspect of the group's evolution you wish to communicate. Please see the discussion at Talk:Equisetopsida, and please say what information you think is needed in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cycad

Well spotted! Now fixed. Smith609 Talk 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HI AGAIN

Hello petey, it me PapaSmerf (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC), remember, 1 of 3 you blocked off Witionary for using it as a chat room. I just wanted to ask why? Why? WHY!? We did nothing wrong; all we did was converse over ideas. We might have chatted once, but still, a simple warning to let us know what we were doing was wrong would have sufficed. I mean really, can you blame us, the section said "discussion", it's easy to interperet that as somewhere to talk with the other users. I just don't understand any of it one bit, please explain. And you know, if this all is just some crazy misunderstanding on my part, I know I speak for all of us when I say I am truley, truley sorry. I hope you can send me something back to answer my questions. Thanks PapaSmerf (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You and your friends had already been warned that Wiktionary was not a chatrooom [9] [10], but you and your friends proceded to use it as one. You were also warned about personal attacks, editing userpages belonging to other people, etc. You were warned that this behavior would result in a block, and it did. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yo

Yo man. You an admin yet? How's that biceps article working out for you? You should get a Bot to archive your Talk page automatically. Hammerfist (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin. I should have time over the next couple of weeks to work on the biceps article and the Equisetopsida article, but there's always the chance something could come up unexpectedly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)