User talk:Tdwin476

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

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

Hi there, I noticed your article on Pachypodium is mostly unwikified text - is it copied from somewhere? You mentioned it is based on the book "Pachypodium (Apocynaceae): Taxonomy, Habitats and Cultivation." - in what sense based? We have to be vigilant about the copyright status of all contributions.

You might also want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_plants and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life. --jet57 (u∴t) 10:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 12:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Pachypodium Project

You're doing a great job so far, seems to me! :) Here's some tips I'd like to offer, though. First, on talk pages, the custom is to sign your posts with "~~~~", which is replaced by your username and a timestamp. This is to maintain talk page continuity. Second, it is generally considered good form to stick to the formatting inherent in the wiki markup - i.e. to not indent body text or add underlines to the headings. Finally Third, I think it would be a lot easier to comprehend the history page of this article if you made edits in more substantial steps, rather than a small bit at a time. Lastly, take a look at some of the featured articles for some ideas on what a good Wikipedia article should look like, in terms of layout. Good luck on this project! — flamingspinach | (talk) 05:19, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

I need to respond to the two issues listed above in this user: talk section: (1) copyright--Jet57--and (2) cleanup process and style--flamingspinach--along side of a re-edit of the Pacypodium_A Short History of the Genus.

Copyright issues concern me too because a botanical account, apparently, is very much organized around the dissimulation of factual information, which serves a descriptive role, verus a treatment of an idea. What I mean is that I obviously have not done the field work that this article rests upon in structure. Instead I am setting up the beginning of a meta-analysis of several authors who have conducted field-work. This article rests upon the information collected and observed by Rapanarivo et al. To it other works, which are not as comperhensive, will be added to account of a meta-analysis. So realizing that I have to deal with information that is by itself factual, material, information that I have to at times "list" mre than "explain" I have developed a strategy to account for use of such information. To cite every detail with in the assembly of significant details of material information, the article would end up becoming to confusing by the citation system. I perfer to to cite sections accordingly to aviod this overly cited structure. Plus in listing the material, I have had to synthesis a great deal of material. Rapanarivo et al.'s account is over 110 pages in length. That with the ommision of other material, has made it such that the original text has been transformed, with exception to adhering to the structure of their account of the genus Pachypodium. I believe that with proper citation, transformation, synthesis, and omission protects the account I am giving from copyright issues. I know that is a successful approach to aviod plaguralism in Academy, thought I know that Wikipedia is fundamently not academic writing. I hope that explains a stragedy that is sound and avoids plaguralism.

Lastly the lack of wified text that you have observed was at the time the result of me not knowing how to wikify. Still it remains unwifikified because I have focused a lot of attention on a section that I was getting strong editing requests; namely Pachypodium_Key_to_Species. I greatly appreciate your attention to this arcticle/Wiki. I have had time to really dive into Wikipedia:WikiProject_plants and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life; I partly fear being distracted yet at the same time realise what an assett these two sources could be.

As to the cleanup and stylistic changes I will make those changes as soon I can. I thank you for the useful information as how to make the article/Wiki confirm to standards. I will remove (1) the identations; (2) the underlined headings; and (3) bold faced type. There is one article; however, that I do not think that following the wiki markup will improve the article. Pachypodium_Key_to_Species has recieved a lot of attention over a need for clarity anf organization. I think that my latest construct of the page, which is a Botanical Key, or Dichotomous Key, reads the best that it has so far. Also I still have to think more about the Pachypodium_A Short History of the Genus. It too is a technical work that uses a cumbersome manner of listing taxon by assigning the orginal author and then, if any, an author who corrects the first, all behind a correctly italicized binominal expression of genus and species. To make it worse is that abrevations are used mostly with out any real sense as to who these individuals are. I still have to grapple with that one because I do not recognize some of the names.

[edit] HI

Hi there and welcome. I've been working a bit in articles sich as Pachypodium baronii and others. To format them right, I think we are going to have to sacrifice some of the technical detail. We can move some material the discussion page if you'd like. I myself don't want to make any big cuts though. I know you are working on it, and what I am here to say is that I'm available for any formatting questions or other questions you may have. Just leave a message on my talk page. --DanielCD 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Adminship

Hi, Tim. I've just been nominated for administratorship. If you want to cast a vote and give your opinion, you can go to : [[1]]. JoJan 19:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. JoJan 17:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Philipp Franz von Siebold

Hi Tim, I see that you have been away from Wikipedia for some time. Well anyway, we all need some time off. I've written a major overhaul of the article on the botanist von Siebold. But I think it needs the touch of a native speaker. It is not always easy to express one's thoughts as easily as a native speaker. But some copyediting with your elegant style could do the trick. Thanks. JoJan 20:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I just received positive feedback for this article on my user page. If this article looks so well now, it is certainly thanks to your contribution reviewing it and adding sentences in your fluent style. JoJan 05:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Page Removal - Study%2C_Materials%2C_and_Methodlogy"

Regarding your note below:

This page is a corection in the title of the page's name AFTER the new page was already created, making it to my knowledge not useful to "move" the page. So I a creating a manual redirect if you stubble upon this page. See Study, Materials, and Methodology. Sorry for the inconvenience, If there is a way to get these unwanted pages deleted, please let me know on my talk page.

Its been my experience that the cleanup of these types of small errors/problems falls to our administrators. Many of them are very helpful, so just let one of them know. You might try Mel Etitis. Peace. WBardwin 05:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You are quite welcome....while here at Wiki, we all learn something new all the time. WBardwin 15:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I just randomly happened across that article and have deleted it for you. The easiest way to get them removed is to simply add "{{d}}" to the article, highlighting it for deletion. violet/riga (t) 19:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Redirects

The format is like this: blank the entire page and write, #REDIRECT [[whatever]]

[edit] Spelling of Bruyns

Please note that the correct spelling of Bruyns is with an 's'. See e.g. [2] for confirmation. --Ott2 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)