User talk:Circeus/april-may2008

Farewell then

Sorry to see you go but I understand. These endeavours have a habit of taking up a lot of time. Had this been a year ago I would have hassled you to stay like I have done others but I now think differently. Plenty of stuff to do elsewhere which isn't mercilessly edited...like doing (gasp) Original research.... Anyway, good luck. Cheers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame (for the rest of us, anyhow). Good luck to you. Hesperian 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise sorry to see you go. Best of luck in your other work! Oh, and if there are any pages you used to watch and revert vandalism on that received little other attention, feel free to let me know so I can watchlist them. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to see you go as well. It is hard to imagine FLC without you, but I guess we will have to manage! Best of luck in your future endeavors. Cheers, Rai-me 00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell. You've been great. All the best. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes in your future endeavors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your numerous, thoughtful contributions --Melburnian (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I'd thought to say that. Thanks from me too. Hesperian 06:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To one of the best. Sorry to see you go. Chris (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to ask but I thik you're the best person for the job.....

OK, I hate to ask but I would be extremely grateful if you could just have a look and offer an opinion on Song Thrush whose FAC has stalled -Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Song_Thrush#Song_Thrush - and needs a little help. I'll just ask this once and cross my fingers...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit requests from time to time.....

Are you still ok doing the odd copyedit request or would you feel it was too much of an imposition? I had an entertaining coffee with Tony the other day who gave you a complement WRT prose..(an admirable achievement :) ) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Good catch! I'll find out and add that. I added the same information to the museum article as well. Noroton (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maple

I see the inactive notice on your page but it looks like you're editing at least a little. So hopefully you'll see this and reply.

Do you by any chance have an opinion on why the German word for maple remained Ahorn all these years rather than turning into a form like *Achern? Is it folk etymology? (That would be ironic, seeing as it's so close to acorn.) Or is it just a random example of a word that defied the sound changes by pure chance? I've already checked Grimm's etymological dictionary, and it just says it's "one of the few words that retained its original form". Here's a link if you're curious:[1]

Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (Yes, I'm the same Soap you know from elsewhere.)[reply]
--- To reply: 1) I have seen User:Circeus/Maple, in fact, that's how I found your page. I wouldnt have even known that you were on Wikipedia if your Maple page hadnt been high on the list of Google hits. 2) I've already asked a bunch of people on the ZBB, both PIE experts (well, the best we've got, anyway) and German speakers, since the real issue is why the modern German form is so odd, when it was following the expected developments at least as late as the Old High German stage. Asking you was just a stab in the dark, and I thought that since you seem to have an interest in maple trees and I know you know a lot of linguistics that you might just happen to have noticed that Ahorn is a very weird word and have some information on why it's that way. But no biggie; if Grimm didn't know I can't really expect anyone else to. Thank you anyway =) Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Hi, is there an official policy regarding the use of links in years? I could find nothing specific in WP:MOSDATE, except that they should only be there when relevant to the context; aren't those links you deleted in Nahuatl language relevant to the context? Regards, Rsazevedo ^msg 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camling phonology table

Hi Circeus - thanks for helping on the phonology table. Vishnava (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

i will miss you dude. i very much thankful to you for your contribs on portal plants. I appreciate your devotion to Wikipedia. With regards, Sushant gupta (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits

You are skilled in the art of persuasion: (your edit summary). Such prose has never before blessed the wikipedia project. --DerRichter (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jstor website.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jstor website.jpg. 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. NotifyBot (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 21 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michel-Édouard Méthot, 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.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

Thanks for taking the time to review the FAC for USS Orizaba (ID-1536). I believe that I have addressed the concerns you had with the article. If the changes I made are satisfactory, I would appreciate it if you could mark your concerns as resolved. (The {{hide}} template works well for that purpose.) Thanks again. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poughkeepsie Firehouse #3

Niagara Hose Company, which I haven't photographed yet, therefore haven't started an article on.

Sorry to take a while getting back to you ... as you may have deduced from my other messages, I was away for a long weekend. I did see your message but couldn't respond since I was on a public computer whose security I was not certain enough of to log in from. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp FAC

I noticed you made a recent edit at Jack Kemp and your username was invoked during its FAC debate. You may want to come comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the point that it is not consistent with current prevailing editorial standards to remove duplicate links. Rather than just removing them, I would prefer debate, bacuase I don't think it is the right thing to to. Feel free to chime in at the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for awarding me a barnstar. -- P199 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plants of Eastern Canada

You mean plants from the Eastern United States? Hehe just kidding. Of course I'd be happy to. I'm currently in the eastern US, so I tend to associate them with this area, but now that you mention it I will be sure to let you know. Most of the Trillium articles need some work by the way, and at least a few of the species are in eastern Canada (I think). By the way I thought you retired? Back already? It's pretty addictive eh? DJLayton4 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that a cultivation section would fit the information? I think that gardening-related information about the plant is relevant and common in gardening literature (it is quite a popular plant for more advanced gardeners). So long as it doesn't get too instructive I think it should definitely go in. I have a gardening book on native North American plants, but it's not with me at the moment. It has a few pages on trilliums, so I could add to the section in a week or so when I get the book back. DJLayton4 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions are my least favourite. Go for it! DJLayton4 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "leaves" are actually bracts, but there are leaves present underground. I think the description from FNA makes the bit about the bracts clear, but we might need a different source for the subterranean leaves. I have get to work on a research proposal, so I'll have to at least try to give Wikipedia a rest for the night. I'll give the whole article a good copyedit tomorrow. It's nice working with you again! ^-^ DJLayton4 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is indeed a very muddy situation. I'm really no expert, but the Liliales is a rather notorious order. Every major general systems taxonomist in the past hundred years or so has broken it up quite differently, so it's constantly shifting about and no one is ever quite sure who to follow. Currently, the vast major of scientists seem to be accepting the APG II, which places Trillium in the family Melanthiaceae, but papers before 2002 or so accept Trillium in Liliaceae. Within Trillium itself, Case & Case are the big names, so what they say is probably accepted by most. Most of the authors writing about small groups in the the FNA and Flora of China are more or less the authorities for those groups of plants. Excuse me if you know all of this already! DJLayton4 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually deciding things seems to be a trademark for taxonomists working above the species rank. The somewhat new method of using DNA has really confused everyone and have made a lot of people realise how inadequate the current Linnaean system really is. Some are endorsing new systems like the Phylocode, but a lot think changing the system is impossible given the small number of people at work in the field of taxonomy. Very often the phylogenies aren't easily compatible with the Linnean system. When a phylogentic tree has 30 forks in it, it's very difficult to give each branch tip its own name, not to mention the forks themselves. DJLayton4 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished up some copyediting for Trillium grandiflorum. I left some notes on the talk page as well. Fastest GA nom ever! DJLayton4 (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the GA! It was a good collaboration. Will have have to do it again sometime! DJLayton4 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's take me a while to get back to you. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of exams at uni so I won't have much time in the next couple of weeks to work on articles very seriously. Both articles seem like good candidates for expansion. If you decide to work on either I can help out as much as I can (maybe just copyediting), or otherwise we can wait a few weeks. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary

Thanks for moving the template to the bottom. I had to make it much wider and have since moved all the templates I could find.

Do you want to post an opinion to the Blessed Virgin Mary Content Fork straw poll/vote? --Carlaude (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mo thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your useful comments - Black Moshannon State Park made featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4/29 DYK

On 29 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Pâquet, 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.

--Bedford 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling Reflist

I added the scrolling reflist in order to reduce the length the article appears. Scrolling reflists are useful once 40 or so references have been reached and are in use on several articles. Would you please show me where it is stated that scrolling reflists are not to be used? What objections do you have to their use? Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, they'll have to go then. Pity, but it's there in black and white. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York State Symbols

Thankyou so much for your contribution. I'm still in the process of finishing it and found an awefl picture for te sea scorpion. I took it out but this one is excellent. Thanks again. Juthani1 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gyromitra esculenta from exhausted

Righty-ho, since you're sticking around, at some stage when you are at a loose end, I would be extremely grateful for an analysis of Gyromitra esculenta, which is sticking like a stone in my proverbial shoe, and noticeable by the lack of interest in it by others. I have even listed it at Peer Review with little response. Do you reckon the lack of some pictures from Finland and a distribution map are deal-breakers for FAC? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown jewels

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on List of mammals of Canada - copious notes, great use of images, and a very useful contribution indeed. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Agumonandtai.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Agumonandtai.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Could you take a look at a couple of templates you recently modified. The show/hide no longer works properly. They should all be set to "hide" by default. {{Taxbycountry}}, {{UStaxation}} - Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 2:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Digimon Wiki

I know the Digimon WikiProject has kind of died off on wikipedia after the transwiki, but we're still going strong at the [Digimon Wiki]. I was wondering if you'd like to join over there, so that we can get the old team back together and really make the place something to be proud of. Cheers!Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes for venues

Hi, Circeus. I want to say thank you for your commentary in the current discussion taking place at SBS. You comments are fantastic and I was pleasantly surprised to see your adaptation of the venue box for purposes I had not thought of. So, I do not want you to feel that I was trying to push you out of the conversation or dismiss your input. I am hoping that this is but the first step towards developing succession guidelines for venues.

Additionally, I have added a clarification to the dialog that, I hope, will help present what I see as the fundamental differences between successions for people versus buildings and why I think a different "tool" should be used. It would be great if you could read over it and let me know if it is understandable. Thank you. --Gwguffey (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5/28 DYK

On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Étienne-Théodore Pâquet, 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.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]