User talk:Darorcilmir

Herb/herbaceous

Hi, this is another area where botanical terminology is actually unclear, although you only realize this when you look at multiple sources. The Kew Plant Glossary, for example, defines "herb" as "plant without a persistent woody stem above ground", so Musa species are "herbs". On the other hand, it defines "herbaceous" as "an annual herb or a herb with annual stems", so Musa species aren't "herbaceous". The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families describes Musa species as "herb. phan." (see e.g. [1]), and in the definition of this life form says:

herbaceous phanerophyte (herb. phan.)

stems: herbaceous and persisting for several years

buds: above soil-level

e.g.: Musa balbisiana

So for WCSP, Musa species are "herbaceous". Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, according to the RHS website, Musa are “evergreen perennials” - meaning they are non-woody plants which retain their leaves throughout winter. I think in British English we tend to reserve “herbaceous” for plants which die down completely in winter, e.g. most bulbs, peonies, etc. etc. Looks like we could have and Anglo-American conflict here. Darorcilmir (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Further: the RHS A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants defines “herbaceous plant” as “a non-woody plant that dies back (loses top-growth and becomes dormant) at the end of the growing season ... overwintering by means of underground rootstocks.” Hence, as Musa retains its top-growth, it’s not herbaceous by this definition! There are several groups that RHS doesn’t describe as herbaceous - e.g. primulas, heucheras, bergenias. These are all “evergreen perennials”!

There’s another problem here. To a Brit, “herb” is a culinary herb, e.g. mint, basil, sage etc. To an American, “herb” is any non-woody plant. Darorcilmir (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Billardiera heterophylla

Hi @Darorcilmir: I think you edited Billardiera heterophylla on June 4, 2013 and probably added the information that it had won a Royal Horticultural Society award in 2013. Unfortunately the link purporting to support that assertion now only shows how to propagate the plant. Hoping you can track down the original link.... since, if it is true, it is an ironic comment on a plant which, through gardening, is becoming an environmental disaster. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve just checked the link again, and it seems correct - i.e. it is the RHS citation showing that the plant has indeed won the AGM. I’m at a loss to understand how the same link can be pointing you elsewhere! Obviously this plant is nothing but bad news for Australia, something it has in common with many alien species that have found their way on to Ozzie soil. I have no idea whether the plant is particularly troublesome in its native habitat. Regards Darorcilmir (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Articles with scientific names

Hi, I think some section of the Manual of Style is the place to explain the use of articles with scientific names. It's irrelevant what the situation was in classical Latin, because we're writing in English. Also it can't be the case that we don't use an article with a scientific name because one wouldn't be used in Latin, because "the" is widely used with the names of families, orders, etc. See e.g. Hominidae which begins "The Hominidae ...". See also WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER.

The real reason seems to be that scientific names are treated more-or-less as proper nouns (or proper noun phrases for multiword names). The common noun–proper noun difference in English is marked by the way determiners are used: in most circumstances their required usage is opposite. A determiner is required with a singular common noun but cannot be used with a singular proper noun: "I saw a woman" vs. "I saw a Jane"; "The woman was outside" vs. "The Jane was outside". By contrast, a determiner is required with a plural proper noun but optional with a plural common noun: "The Alps are the main habitat of ..." vs. "The Mountains are the main habitat of ..."

The names of species are singular in Latin and are treated as singular proper noun phrases in English; hence, they don't take articles when used to refer to the species (rather than to an individual of the species). The names of higher ranks are plural in Latin, but are treated either as plural or singular proper noun phrases in English, hence either "The Hominidae are a family" ["the" required to mark this as a proper noun rather than a common noun] or "Hominidae is a family" ["the" omitted to mark this as a proper noun rather than a common noun]. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Matte vs. matt

I've never seen that spelling, so I learned something new. :) Thanks for all your great rhododendron articles! I wish they grew naturally in my region but Chicago is totally rhododendron-depauperate. –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Julia Görges

Could you explain why you reverted my edit of the entry for Julia Görges?

Tullyvallin (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Tullyvallin

What is your rationale for changing this parameter? Her height was expressed in meters/feet. Is there some ruling that states this must be centimetres? I have checked other tennis players, and their height is usually expressed either in meters/feet or feet/meters. Actually in the English-speaking world (US and UK) the norm is feet and inches. Darorcilmir (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Any reputable reference will tell you that, throughout the metric world, height is officially measured in centimetres. e.g. https://www.ipracticemath.com/learn/measurement/measurement-units or https://www.varsitytutors.com/hotmath/hotmath_help/topics/choosing-appropriate-units-of-measure Also, look at the entry for Julia Görges in Wikipedia Deutsch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_G%C3%B6rges The fact that the height of other tennis players on Wikipedia is wrongly expressed in metric figures is not surprising. Unfortunately, the English version of Wikipedia, being heavily dominated by users from the USA, often gets the use of the metric system wrong.

Tullyvallin (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Tullyvallin

Of the top 20 women’s tennis players, no less than 18 have their height expressed in meters/feet. I can find no instruction in WIkipedia that height must be expressed in cm. On the contrary, the template allows for either meters or cm. And guess what? The WTA website https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings uses feet/meters. Whether right or wrong, this is the English language version of Wikipedia which was developed in the US. As I said before, the US and UK use feet and inches by default. So there is no universal right or wrong about this issue. Regards Darorcilmir (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you think there's no "right or wrong about this issue", why did you revert my edit? To be consistent, it seems that you should alter the entries of the two women players whose height is correctly rendered in centimetres.

Tullyvallin (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Tullyvallin

Maybe I will. Not for some universal truth which doesn’t exist, but for the sake of consistency. Darorcilmir (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Aethionema

Dear I have placed a request for a source for your statement that: "The Latin name Aethionema derives from ancient Greek αἴθειν "to light up, kindle" + νῆμα "thread, yarn". Could you provide a source? Thank you in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that’s not one of my edits. I don’t have a source for that statement.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge

Your articles are welcome! Hope you're well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

New article: Garden marguerite

As you did quite a bit of work on the cultivation aspects of Argyranthemum, I thought I would draw your attention to the article I created today, Garden marguerite. I wasn't quite sure what to use as the title, but plain "marguerite" is used for the wild Argyranthemum in floras of the Canaries, so I thought this would be better, and it is used in the Plantsman article. I want to add more later on the cultivars and their probable origins, for which there are sources. All contributions welcome! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't actually followed up the RHS links; I see they don't work now. I think all the AGMs can be referenced from this link. A job for tomorrow or after! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately every RHS plant link has been changed for some reason. I therefore have the onerous task of going through everything and updating it. Which will take a while. But I will do the marguerites tomorrow. Regards, Darorcilmir (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

RHS link

Could you work your magic on ref. 12 at Polygala please? These changes to the RHS AGM urls are a huge pain; thanks for your diligent work fixing them. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Head of state vs. head of government

Re: This edit of Chrysanthemum.

The President of India (Pranab Mukherjee at that time) is the head of state of India, not the Prime Minister of India (then and now Narendra Modi). Modi is the head of government. See the linked articles for details and/or confirmation. —  AjaxSmack  21:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"sea level"

I checked a number of dictionaries (merriam-webster.com, macmillandictionary.com, cambridge.org, lexico.com), and they all show the noun as "sea level". I'll happily let you use "sea-level" as a compound modifier (as in "sea-level winds"), but for the noun I'll take the dictionaries' word over yours. Chris the speller ^yack 21:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the Oxford English Doctionary - the premier dictionary in the UK - has this:

Sea-level, n. 1. The mean level of the surface of the sea, the mean level between high and low tide.

I am certain that this formulation is correct. A such, there is no need to change it. Regards Darorcilmir (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the old OED gotcha. Very few people on the other side of the pond have access to the OED, even in an otherwise well-stocked public library. Now I have to take your word for it. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 03:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Um... The last example use in the OED is 1894. Google ngrams, for what they are worth, suggest that the unhyphenated form is more common in recent years, although both are in use. The UK Met Office uses "sea level", see e.g. here. I have to say that I wouldn't use "sea-level", and I'm British and a pedant over language use. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: the OED is available online but only with a subscription – but public libraries in the UK almost all provide access via a library card. I wonder if the WMF can persuade OUP to open it up to nominated editors, as is the case with some journals and other restricted sources. It would be worth enquiring, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Cultivars of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Hi! I see you are working on cultivars for Symphyotrichum species. Great work! Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has an extensive cultivar section, and the article is awaiting review as a GAN. I was wondering if you would let me know if you see anything in the cultivar section that you may like to change before you do so. I did quite a bit of research for it and may have insight or you may be able to shed light on any confusions I may have had. One thing you will notice is that 'Coombe Fishacre' will be listed in this article. It is thought possibly to be a cross with S. novi-belgii, as you will see in the S. lateriflorum article. --Eewilson (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: Hi! Thanks. I'm no expert, I'm just in the process of updating the AGM entries, using the RHS website. Virtually ALL of the URLs have become obsolete since 2013, so it's been a real mission to go through the entire database, updating URLs.

'Coombe Fishacre' is one such entry. The RHS entry doesn't mention S. laterifolium, but I'm happy to defer to your better judgment on this and others. Kind regards Darorcilmir (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that must be quite annoying! I went and checked the S. lateriflorum article after I made this note to you, checked the RHS website and saw that what I had marked as a source for both species was not showing S. lateriflorum, so it either changed and I didn't get it archived before then, or I made a bad note when I was researching this. Nonetheless, some sellers and even an 1898 garden magazine list it as a cultivar of Aster lateriflorus, but one seller says it is a cross of both that and A. novi-belgii. I may also have read that in Picton, but need to double-check. I got that book late in the writing of that section. Happy Editing! --Eewilson (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: Thanks! Likewise. All the best. Darorcilmir (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Importance-assessing

Please note that all species of plant that are commercially available, and especially ones that have gained the Award of Garden Merit, are to be assessed at least Mid-importance. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Caladenia elegans is a herb

In all the references I have for Caladenia elegans, the species is referred to as a "perennial herb", not a/an "herbaceous plant". Probably the easiest to access is this one (first line of "Description"). The article about the genus, and I'm pretty sure all 350 Caladenia, 300-odd Pterostylis, 100-odd Thelymitra articles and many others about Australian orchids use the word "herb". I am unable to find a reference in any of those articles that describes the species as "a/an herbaceous plant". As explained in the article Herbaceous plant (under "Etymology") "[I]n some botanical sources, the noun "herb" refers to a 'plant that does not produce a woody stem'...". Unless a reliable source can be found that refers to C. elegans as "a/an herbaceous plant", it must be described as a perennial herb. Gderrin (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I see you (or somebody) has blue-linked "herb" to "herbaceous plant". So there is obviously some sort of equivalence between the two terms. I have never understood the difference to be honest. In the UK we tend to use "herb" in the sense of plants with culinary or medicinal value, such as parsley, sage, etc. Wikipedia gives this definition priority on the page Herb. For this reason I prefer "herbaceous" when describing non-woody plants. Having said that, I can't really argue with the sources on this occasion. Darorcilmir (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I link herb to Herbaceous plant because there is no alternative - the herb article is about culinary herbs. The meanings of "herbaceous plant" and "herb" are similar, and some species are both. "Herbaceous plant" means "not woody" but "herb" means "not woody and dies down to the ground after flowering". The Wiktionary definition of herb is close, but unreferenced. So caldenias, thelymitras, daffodils etc. are perennial herbs - they produce new above-ground foliage each year, flower, then die down to an underground bulb and repeat the cycle. Plants like lawn grasses, lavender, aster daisies and mint are perennial herbaceous plants, but not (botanical) herbs. Incidentally, in the Glossary of botanical terms, the word "herb" links to the herb article - a clear mistake. I'll fix that. The "herbaceous plant" article also needs clarification. Gderrin (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: well, your distinction is one that some sources make, but most that I use do not. The old Cook (1968) ABC of Plant Terms defines "herb" as "no persistent stem above ground, as distinct from woody plants", and "herbaceous" as "having the characteristics of a herb". Its definition leaves plants with persistent non-woody stems in a bit of a limbo. The Kew Plant Glossary defines "herb" as "plant without a persistent woody stem above ground". Mauseth (2014) Botany (a major US textbook) is even tougher, defining herb as "plant that consists only of primary tissues; lacking wood". (By the way, you have lavender as a perennial herbaceous plant above, but it's actually a (sub)shrub, with persistent woody stems.)

The multiple meanings of "herb" mean that it's best avoided in Wikipedia. "Annual" = "herbaceous annual" and "herbaceous perennial" are reasonably clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, no reference that I can find for an Australian orchid describes it as "herbaceous", instead describing each as a "terrestrial herb" (except for lithophytes and epiphytes). That includes every formal description in the journal Australian Orchid Research, every entry with a description of an orchid in FloraBase (the website of the Western Australian Herbarium [eg. Caladenia, Thelymita and Diuris]), PlantNET (the website of the National Herbarium of New South Wales [eg. Caladenia, Pterostylis and Corybas]), the website of the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria [eg. Caladenia, Pterostylis, and Dipodium] and the State Herbarium of South Australia ([eg. Caladenia, Caleana, and Microtis]). Every recent journal description of an Australian orchid that I can find, such as that in Muelleria for Thelymitra venosa has "terrestrial herb". Even the Macquarie Dictionary has "herb 1. any non-woody seed-bearing plant which dies down to the ground after flowering." Gderrin (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: You yourself acknowledge there is ambiguity here. You describe grasses, asters and mints as herbaceous. But Wikipedia and others describe them ALL as herbs. I prefer to avoid the ambiguous and nebulous term "herb" altogether. The RHS reserves "herbaceous perennial" for soft plants which die down (peonies, asters, daffodils), and "evergreen perennial" for soft plants that keep their foliage (bergenia, primula, heuchera, hellebore). Annuals are just called "annual plants". I think that's a much more satisfactory solution. Darorcilmir (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: yes, there are different traditions in different countries and botanical communities. (For example, many US sources make extensive use of the term "forb", distinguishing between "herbs" and "forbs". Herbaceous terrestrial orchids would then be forbs, not herbs.) The point is that these terms are not used consistently. There are sources that use the same definition as the Macquarie Dictionary, but equally there are reliable sources that don't. This is an international encyclopedia, not an Australian (or even US) encyclopedia. WP:COMMONALITY applies. We don't reproduce the exact words of a source, we paraphrase. So there's no reason whatsoever not to paraphrase "herb" as "herbaceous perennial" if it's clear that the meaning in the source is the same; it's no different to the example given of changing "spectacles" or "eyeglasses" in a source to "glasses". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The term "herb" is used consistently for terrestrial orchids, not just by all Australian authors but by those in North America ([eg. Cypripedium, Goodyera, and Bulbophyllum]), China ([eg. Apostasioideae, Cypropedioideae, and Vanilloideae]) and New Zealand ([eg. Acianthus sinclairii, Caladenia variegata, and Pterostylis irwinii]). None use the phrase "herbaceous plant". So the wording of 1400-odd Wikipedia orchid articles is to be changed from "herb" to "herbaceous plant" because of another editor's preferences? Sorry - that change is not justified and there are more important tasks to be done here. "Herbaceous perennial" and "herbaceous plant" do not have the same meaning as "herb" - if they did, one would expect at least some botanists to use them. I'd suggest it's the Herbaceous plant article that needs to be fixed, or maybe a new "Herb" article created, distinguishing the botanical from the culinary term. Gderrin (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: you're not answering the point that there is no consistent definition of the botanical sense of "herb". It's nothing to do with editors' preferences. There are two definitions in widespread use in reliable sources. Both require there to be no woody parts, but

• "herb1" does not require the the plant to die down annually
• "herb2" does require the plant to die down annually.

The problem is that if we reproduce, correctly, a statement in a source that a plant is a "herb", unless we also give a clear indication of whether "herb1" or "herb2" is meant – which could be by additional text, e.g. "annual", or by glossing, or by a wikilink to a one of the two definitions – the reader does not know whether the plant dies down annually or not. Readers can't be expected to know which definition is used in the source given. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion now opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Use of the term "herb". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a problem with the definition, but not that with the suggestion that there is a problem with the orchid articles. Since so many dozens(?) of orchid botanists from so many different countries are all using the same word ("herb") for so many thousands of orchid species, they must all be singing from the same song book. None uses the term "herbaceous plant". So, is it not possible fix the problem by editing the Herb article? Thank you for your add to the Project Plants page. Gderrin (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Melaleuca citrina

Hello again Darorcilmir,

You have twice reverted "...commonly known as 'common red bottlebrush'..." to "...the 'common red bottlebrush'..." in the article Melaleuca citrina with no reason other than "Not ungrammatical - common names are very often prefixed with 'the". You may, or may not be correct, but neither was the former wording ungrammatical or unusual. I can't find any guidance on the matter in WP:NCFLORA, although WP:NCTHE has guidance for the use of "The", "A" and "An" in article titles. However, there are 90 Melaleuca articles articles and many hundreds or thousands of other plant articles, including the good article on English sundew, that begin "...commonly known as...". There are good reasons for that wording, and for you to make those reversions for no reason other than because of an apparent personal preference, is poor form in my opinion. It should have at least, been first discussed on the article Talk page. Gderrin (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Hi, as you know the term "common name" just means "vernacular name" - that is, a name used in the native language of a speaker. There is, I think, a misconception that it implies frequency of use and popularity. That is indeed the most common definition of "common" - e.g. "dandelions are very common in gardens". This really does mean frequent.

However, in biology a common name may be used by only a small local group and still be called a common name. The Wikipedia article "Common name" has the sentence, "A common name is sometimes frequently used, but that is not always the case." We rarely know how often a common name is used. In fact it may be archaic, and not crop up at all in modern literature.

"Commonly known as" is an adverbial form of "common name", I guess. It's ambiguous to the general reader, who mistakenly equates it with frequency and popularity. "Commonly" is not a word that is found very often in modern discourse. It has an old-fashioned feel about it. I also think it's rather ugly. Do you ever use the word "commonly" in your normal conversation? I'm struggling to think of a single time I have ever used the word.

There is actually no need for it at all! "The ..." works just as well, and avoids this ambiguity altogether. "Melaleuca citrina, the red bottlebrush" is good grammar, and has the value of brevity (a necessary quality of good prose). Regards, Darorcilmir (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited To Catch a Thief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Jeannet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyclopia (plant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red tea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pseudolarix amabilis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimorphism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

LOTR

Hi, Darorcilmir, please believe me that people have argued endlessly about the nature of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, and that those of us who've been working on these articles for some years now have read many books and learned articles about it all. In brief, Tolkien was quite clear that it was one work and he had wanted to have it published in one volume - the decision to split it into three volumes was his publisher's, and he wasn't at all keen on it. You can read more on that in the LOTR article, and much more in his letters or Humphrey Carpenter's biography. I do hope that's ok, we really don't need to be arguing about these very well-established facts in this case. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: He didn't call it a novel either - but you just did!

So you're happy that the dictionary definition of "novel" applies to LOTR. But you are not happy that the dictionary definition of "trilogy" applies to a work containing three books with three different titles!

I find that somewhat confusing, and I'm a long-term Tolkien enthusiast. Regards Darorcilmir (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be glad if you didn't try to score amusing points with me, please; I will tell you a bit of history and then you may judge the case. I personally would call the work a heroic romance or something of the sort, and for what it's worth, Tolkien would, if pressed, have used a similar label; other people call it an epic - yet another label he didn't like - or high fantasy, a term invented after his death, but even then generally as "a high fantasy novel" thus confusing the labels hopelessly. The fact is that the public and booksellers put it on the sci-fi/fantasy shelves (yes, he'd have hated that too) and call it a novel, while Wikipedia editors regularly "correct" the label to "novel" so we've all resigned ourselves to that. I think you will see from this that far from being absurdly inconsistent, we're actually doing the the best we can to balance detailed knowledge of Tolkien criticism with popular understanding. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I'm not trying to "score amusing points". I'm simply highlighting the inconsistency of using a dictionary definition in one case, but rejecting a dictionary definition in another case. I resent the implication that you are some sort of superior being, presenting the final word on a topic; and that I should bow down and accept it. Darorcilmir (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You used two exclamation marks ("!"), giving me that exact impression. You have no cause to resent anything, as I've simply explained the case plainly and directly. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salvia guaranitica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ovate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hidden text at Fuchsia

Nine years ago, you made this edit to Fuschia, and then apparently abandoned it. What purpose does this serve? Can you resolve this? The hidden text is nothing but pollution of the wikitext at this point. BD2412 T 23:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No idea. Presumably there was a problem with the website. I've removed the hidden text markers. Darorcilmir (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to remove longstanding instances of hidden text sitewide. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Eremophila debilis

Hi! I’m contacting you as you were the last editor to this article and I note from your edits that have botanical interests. I live in an area of Australia where bitou bush and boneweed have been a problem and have done some work clearing those from coastal cliffs. A lot of the vegetation which isn’t either of those but which has similar dense low growing and spreading bush forming habits, and not dissimilar leaves either, looks like a kind of boobialla (of the genus Myoporum) or, I thought, when seeing the note about Eremophila debilis at the foot of the species list on the Myopor article, maybe it’s that. So I went to the Eremophila debilis article for further info and see the image and think, hmmm, maybe. But then when I Google more images, I find that all the others show a plant with a leaf that is long and narrow. Therefore, the image used on the Eremophila debilis page is almost certainly not of that plant. And here I come to a dead end, as I don’t know what to do to correct that. Other than delete it, obviously. Over to you? PS please ping me if replying on here. Thanks! Boscaswell talk 10:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: Hi, not sure I can be much help to you! Wikimedia is the main repository of images for Wikipedia; and I see that it includes images with both rounded and elongated leaves. The text of the article does describe the leaves as lanceolate, which would support long and narrow. The images are here:

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Eremophila debilis.

. So take your pick! Darorcilmir (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Darorcilmir: Well, you were helpful - you pointed me in the right direction. So, thank you. I’ve changed the pic used. Also, tho I didn’t expect any reply, someone did when I posted about it on that article’s talk page. So all’s progressing well. Thanks again! Boscaswell talk 09:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: No problem, any time. Good luck with the edits.Darorcilmir (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Darorcilmir!

Happy New Year!

Darorcilmir,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

POWO, Accepted Infraspecifics, and synonyms

Thank you for creating Rosa soulieana. Plants of the World Online list four "Accepted Infraspecifics" for this species, and unfortunately they always hide synonyms in the listings for the subtaxa. In this case there is only one, Rosa moschata var. yunnanensis Focke. Anyway, I went and fixed up the article, but I thought you should know. Abductive (reasoning) 07:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

I believe RHS is now being listed in the Wikidata entry. However I’m unsure how to do this. Darorcilmir (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just did it. You copy the numeric part of the RHS url, go to Wikidata, select '+ add statement', type 'RHS' into the field (P8765 "Royal Horticultural Society plant ID" should appear), paste the number in, and hit 'publish'. Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. Darorcilmir (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)