|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User talk:EncycloPetey |
 Archives |
|---|
First, I'll refer you to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages
Second, it is the ONLY way to deal with most of them. They cannot be integrated into the article text. They are full of information which is essentially useless, and does NOT have anything to do with the subject of the articles they appear in, they are about the subjects of the OTHER articles which just happen to (usually) contain some passing reference to the article in which the "in popular culture" section appears. This kind of information cannot be integrated into the article text.
What happens when you try to separate them out into separate articles is those articles either develop into giant lists of trivia (which, since the article title is usually "such and such in popular culture" isn't actually irrelevant to the subject of the article), or they get recommended for deletion. (And rightfully so, really)
And what happens when you say "c'mon guys lets not do this trivia section stuff" or "can someone clean up this trivia section" is NOTHING. Nothing happens.
I was trying to figure out if the information I was deleting was relevant, and I didn't delete all those sections in their entirety. But at least I'm DOING SOMETHING about the problem. Andy Christ (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if you think it can be turned to prose, do so. I do not see any form of coherent thesis in that list. I notice you've added some items of similar format to another section (which does have an obvious contribution to the subject, as it is evidence of its notability), but in that case loaded it with weasel words. I'm guessing you've got some attachment to the subject...otherwise you wouldn't have been aware enough to add anything. If you feel there is something to that section and that it's fixable, fix it. If it isn't fixed within a few days, I'm deleting it again. Andy Christ (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules And what you linked me to isn't even a rule. If you think it can be turned into a coherent section or integrated into other sections, then do it. Until then, don't threaten me for doing what I think is right.Andy Christ (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice. With and without javascript enabled. I will turn that off again as soon as there seems to be problems, but for now, it really is used well for that page. -- carol (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To respond to your last comment, deleted before the page was added to the DYK update: I am not advising you to violate WP:FORK. I was just saying that the information you had there, and didn't have there, created issues for me when I, knowing nothing about the subject, tried to verify the facts in it that you had highlighted as the hook. Vishnava fixed the problem ... I wish the text he added had been there when I was trying to verify it. Or, if you had added something in the intro that said "the world's largest herbarium is at the ..." and then footnoted it explaining how it came from the two collections added together, that would have been acceptable.
Verification should be easy for any reader to do. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ever sense the use of software? I called it a smell on a different talk page recently. I said that this edit history had the odor of Git (software) to it. While I do not actually 'smell' software, if asked to assign a scent to software, I would give git the smell of skid marks. Both, smells, actually, depending on how the versioning software was being used. The smell of rubber left on the pavement after the spinning of tires, often seen in movies for a fast getaway and well, the smell of the other for the smell of misuse and abuse ....
This software would have had to been used from someone with a computer that has shell access to the computer which hosts wikipedia. -- carol (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 |
On 27 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of herbaria, 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) 12:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Its a bit confusing for me with that stub article, since as far as I have seen the gold standards of species delineation in prokaryotes is governed by Woese's interpretation of bacterial evolution, Bergey's and most commonly these days on the Report ad hoc committee bacterial systematics. Do you think I am lost?? I very well may be.. lol. :D Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I added the article back. I did not know that removing it from the nominations page meant that it would be included in the queue for the next update. My appologies. As for the "unattributed statements", everything in that article is attributed to a source. The plagiarism claims are false, but one may question why the same names of organizations Mrs. Jorgensen served on that appear in the main source similarly appear in the Wikipedia article; I cannot make up an organization, thus they will match what those in the source said. Happyme22 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Flushed with over-confidence from my moss adventures I thought I'd try a lichen. The resulting carnage is here. At least two sites suggest that J. scotica and G. scotica are synonyms, but once source has the former growing in the Cairngorms and the other (quoted at length verbatim at the bottom) has the latter elsewhere. The former may post-date the latter, but I don't want to get two species confused. I am baffled by the taxobox as everything is red. Perhaps I should give up and get on with something I actually know something about, but before I do so can you assist, or point me in the direction of someone who might? Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps unwisely I persevered with a couple of lichens and then returned to the realm of bryophytes with Plagiomnium medium and Tayloria lingulata, which would doubtless benefit from making you acquaintance. They may be the last for a while (you will be pleased to hear). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it is the result of fighting vandalism. I don't think I will be much helpful there although I was the one who made the collage image in the infobox, and fixed some MOS issues. Please keep up the good work since such core article should be a FA. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to add too much detail on this, since the reason is rather technical. The removal of the hydrogen improves the yield of energy from the anaerobic fermentation, by shifting the redox balance of the gut. The hydrogen itself is neither toxic nor dangerous, since this all occurs in strictly or mostly anaerobic conditions. I'll see if I can find a good reference that explains this. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The hydrogen is a waste product that builds up and reduces the amount of energy the fermentative organism gets from fermenting more cellulose. The archaea remove the hydrogen, shifting the reaction back away from chemical equilibrium. There is a much better review here, I'll try to work it into the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added that review and a single sentence to the "interactions" section. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Under the section of 'Arrangement on the Stem' of the leaf article, the statement "The fact that an arrangement of anything in nature can be described by a mathematical formula is not in itself mysterious" is POV; in addition it is not backed-up by references. It should be altered to be NPOV or be deleted. By deleting the referenced information that I had provided on this matter you attempt to leave you own point of view unopposed. This is against policy. Please take action to correct this or stop hindering my attempts to balance the information. Thank you--Tarquilu (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.
See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I'm sure there will still be plenty of work when you return! Hope the doctor works out OK Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| Thank you for working hard to make Archaea accessible to the interested lay reader! We autodidacts really appreciate such efforts! Awadewit (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
 |
The Bio-star | |
| Thanks for all your help with the FAC on Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
The article I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2006 was removed unfairly and I have been practically blocked from editing in my efforts to restore. Can you help? The article went to deletion review and the outcome was in favour of "to keep" however it was removed as well as all references to this artist on relevent lists, such as Canadian Artists, and Canadian Painters.76.64.153.167 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Jane Rushmore (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
|
On 8 July 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eat This Book, 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) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is NOT passed at this point for Version 0.7, though it would be a good candidate. It HAS been included in the SOS Children's CD put together by User:BozMo, who collaborates with us but does independent releases. Once we get the selection bot fully going (this month, I hope) we will work even more closely. At this point, this list indicates that the article would be comfortably selected for Version 0.7 even if it were assessed only as Start-Class, so now it's B it will be a definite "yes". If you want to make a manual nomination, you can do that as well. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
|
On 9 July 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franz Stephani, 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) 05:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we've had four men's heads on Main Page before (many times, including one of the today's) and I think it is a rare opportunity to use a picture of a Japanese person. I try to use something else other than human headshots but it is not always available. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it really correct to say that one of its species "produces" ecstacy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine), which is a synthesized drug? I know you are an expert in this area but I am just asking to confirm it. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
|
On 13 July 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Magnoliidae, 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. |
Rudget (logs) 16:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done one, and will get around to the others. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on my window (widescreen) it looked like another one was necessary to balance the main page. I guess on standard comps it looked fine then. That's alright though, for once we don't have a backlog of hooks to plow though. Wizardman 23:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Speer,
I have read the guideline you cited, however I did not find anything that recommended against creating the redirects I have been creating. I have been creating these redirects because they facilitate the usefulness of "G. species" disambiguation pages (ex. A. vicina). The value of these disambiguation pages has been established by several discussions on the topic that envolved members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology. Because some of the redirects have been deleted, the disambiguation pages are no longer nearly as useful. If you wouldn't mind recreating the few redirects you deleted, it would be a great aid to the effort to improve this area of Wikipedia.
Thank you,
Neelix (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that assume good faith means that you ought not to have characterised (edit summary) the links to the Campbell Lab as spam. Links to a research group studying the genus are, in my humble opinion, eminently reasonable, and the editor may well have reason to deprecate the Wikipedia species articles in comparison – I've glanced at a few and some are rather thin. It seems likely that we have someone who understands the taxon, but not Wikipedia processes; in which case we would want to encourage him to contribute in the appropriate fashion. It's unfortunate that he's using a non-fixed IP, as that makes it difficult to engage him in conversation.
I suspect that User:Shadbush is the same person.
I haven't found a justification for dropping A. lamarckii, but A. spicata and A. stolonifera do appear to be the same plant, and I've proposed a merge (Talk:Amelanchier stolonifera). Lavateraguy (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted that text because it is far too long and serves no useful purpose. pages are not supposed to be more than 40K anyway, so "it was 50K" is not a good reason for reverting.
I take it that you think the plot summary serves a useful purpose? Would you agree it is unnecessarily long and detailed? BillMasen (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you have a mop and keys, feel like addressing Aaxxll's repeated removal of all citations, references, and footnotes from the Hawayo Takata article? Thanks! – House of Scandal (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Much as I hadn't really looked into the pronounciation issue until your mis-post, I do think that whoever it was that was arguing against your pronounciation may have been onto something. Funny how things work. :) I've dug up "mah-kay-mah-kay" from this source, which I took the liberty of using to justify a change on the bird-man's page, but I didn't want to edit the dwarf planetplutoidspace rock's article before running it by you though. It seems to be corroborated by various Google results that predate the dwarf planet's naming. The Tom (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
With regard to the Hippocratic Oath statements, they are of significant value to the reader and the article linked to is of substantial content which provides detail to the reader as to the persons who have made the suggestions.
I would appreciate it if you would simply modify the sentence structure, if you do not approve, rather than deleting useful additional information...
Best Wishes Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachyon502 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Re:
The key problem is that the information is not significant enough for a general encyclopedia article on Physicist. Each article should contain the most relevant information, not every possible scrap of potentially connected information. Lots of people have made comments about physicists; this one has had little to no impact
I certainly understand your point and perhaps there is justification for the information being too 'scrappy'. The problem I have is that the information is definately relevant to an enquiry about physicists and through current events is beginning to have a larger impact via debate within the scientific community.
Without creating a new page on the ethics of physics (most probably a stub), I am somewhat at a loss as to how to include this otherwise useful information and to prevent the Hippocratic Oath for scientists article from being a wiki orphan. Tachyon502 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have sent you a short email; a reply would be much appreciated. Thanks! Knepflerle (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi EncycloPetey! It is nice to meet you! --CupPup (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)CupPup
I see you removed the etymology of Dinner claiming there was no evidence that it was derived from disiunare. I wondered about this since the etymology sounds authentic (I thought of the French déjeûner), and I see that OED (or rather the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology) derives it from "Rom. *disjunare for *disjejunare break one's fast, f. dis- + jejunium fast". Would you object restoring the etymology on this evidence? Nick Michael (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I feel humbled before your extraordinary knowledge, and am happy that there are people like you about! I do realise that *disjunare is a back construction, and it is interesting that OED doesn't include it – whence this disparity, I wonder? But enlighten me on one point: Spanish being a Latin language, surely ayunar must derive from some Latin root. Likewise (in a language I understand) French jeûner must be cognate. I wish I had studied linguistics! Nick Michael (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it – I should have checked the edit history. Thanks. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)S
I have replied to your message at User talk:Tearanz. While I appreciate that a single user adding multiple links to their website is normally spam, Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand is a high quality government-owned online encyclopedia, and the editor asked permission at the New Zealand Wikipedian's notice board before placing any links. All editos who have commented on the matter both there and until now, on their talk page, have praised the links. This is clearly not linkspam.
I will restore the links.-gadfium 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I see you're part of Wikiproject Plants, and that you are one of the most recently-active participants. In that case, you might be able to help me here: There's an AFC suggestion in one of the archives which has not yet been reviewed. It's on a man who has discovered several species of orchids, but I'm not sure if this establishes notability. I have copied the post onto one of my sandboxes; would you please look it over for me, and give your feedback? Thanks!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Encyclopetey, some time back you showed me a trick for forcing text to run alongside a Contents box. My attention span is so short I have forgotten how you did it and even which article was involved. Do you remember this, and if so, could you tell me again please? Plantsurfer (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Here you wrote "in tissues where wood develops, there are no longer bundles" in the edit summary, but the xylem in vascular bundles often remains even after secondary growth is well advanced.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The citation is correct. The Cantino et al. publication uses a PhyloCode definition, which amends the Lindley circumscription. As such the amending publication is to be cited parenthetically. Please refer to the cited Cantino publication which shows how to cite PhyloCode definitions of clades. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note), DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you've just created 8 articles that consist largely of non-existent templates. Were those supposed to go to wiktionary? Algebraist 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You blocked me for making a formatting error?? If I do wrong, a simple note on my talk page will suffice. I will clean up any mess I made.
I can't even edit your wiktionary talk page to respond to you. Unblock me so I can continue working on what I'm doing. kwami (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You supported Steppenwolf (novel), 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) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you've signed up for the 1.0 review team. We need your help right now, because we had around 70 nominations last week! As you probably know, Version 0.7 is coming out soon, mainly based on the bot selection. This relieves us of the burden of manually assessing 30,000 articles, but we need the manual system to catch the articles that might "fall through the cracks" - such as a couple of missing provinces needed to complete a set. If you're no longer interested in reviewing, please can you remove your name from the list of reviewers?
You should consult the criteria, but I would suggest that most manual nominations of B-Class articles or higher are expected to pass, unless they are fairly obscure. You can get a good sense of the importance by looking at the article in the bot's list (check the talk page to find which projects have tagged it); an importance score (excluding quality) of <700 indicates that the article is probably too obscure, unless it is needed to complete a useful set (e.g., all the counties of England). I take the view that if someone who is knowledgeable on the topic spends the time to nominate the article, it is likely to be OK, but just occasionally people try to argue for an obscure or poor-quality article.
Thanks, by the way, for all of the biology nominations, an excellent set of articles that I enjoyed reviewing!
So, are you able to help? Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I've left a comment in each of the wikis this time. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33 5 October 2008 (UTC).
i heard all algae are protist. this need to be researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.137.162 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need to research something you heard? Where? From whom? Only grade-school books still use "Protist" as a coherent kingdom. College-level texts reflect current research that algae are not a single related group, but a grab-bag assemblage of unrelated organisms that happen to have chlorophyll. Some of them are plants, some are bacteria, and some belong to other groupings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
i have no time. i was also refering to the general public, not you. also, i heard this out of a high school biology book, and never heard of protist in grade school. and answer questions nicely, not stuck up and snappy. however, thank you for the info.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Non-vascular_plant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.137.162 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - sorry to bother you, but you seem to be the only "human" contributor to the Mutisia article. On researching an article that I am creating on Richard Pearce (botanist), my sources say that he discovered Mutisia decurrens. This species is not listed in the article.
On looking around, I see on GRIN that none of the species listed are mentioned in the article; e.g Mutisia acuminata, Mutisia clematis, Mutisia latifolia, Mutisia peduncularis, Mutisia subulata & Mutisia viciifolia, and none of the species in the article are shown on the GRIN page. I have also come across Mutisia ilicifolia[3] (this also mentions Mutisia decurrens) and Mutisia arachnoidea, Mutisia breviflora & Mutisia versicolor (all on [4].
The GRIN list is replicated at the WikiSpecies page.
I am somewhat confused - can you shed any light? Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |