User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 4

File:Walrav.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Walrav.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

habbakuk

I should be able to put a greek rendition of his name, given the article mentions his feast day in the eastern orthodox church, where he is a prophet. it doesn't matter if it is originally hebrew, so what? at first i put it with latin letters, and some other editor removed it and said "greek isn't written with latin letters" so i put it in greek to satisfy the guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.217.136 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of herbaria

Thanks. Literacy is a good thing! (Hatnotes...who reads 'em anyway?) And yep, there's TRIN. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Novels Collaboration of the Month: February 2009

You supported Flowers for Algernon, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, do you think you could help because we could certainly need it. The collaboration group is not especially active right now.--Robert Waalk (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I can help much this month. I just started work at a new job that is taking up most of what free time I used to have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin Spelling and Pronunciation

I reverted your reversion of the article on Latin spelling and pronunciation‎. The monophthongization of /æ/ in unaccented syllables (such as in Troiae) took place early in the republican period. Such unaccented syllables included morphological endings. (Corssen I, 687 ff.) In stressed syllables it already existed around the middle of the first century B.C when Varro's de lingua latina recorded edus as a regional form of haedus. (C.f. Varro, De lingua Latina, V 97 and VII 96.) If you wish to discuss this further, please do so in either your talkpage, mine, or the article's discussion section. Szfski (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Varro is cited in the article (under diphthongs) as saying that the change began to take place at the end of the Republican period, in rural areas and in Vulgar Latin. If I understand the citation correctly, he does not say that the change occurred in mainstream Classical Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Varro only refers to accented syllables. The change in unaccented syllables (and, therefore, in morphological endings such as in "Troiae") occurred much earlier (c.f. Corssen) Szfski (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's still Vulgar Latin, not Classical Latin as indicated in the edit reversion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. pronouncing /æ/ as [e:] was standard by Virgil's time. There's no reason to think Virgil himself would have pronounced the vowel any other way. Szfski (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now there you're quite wrong. Virgil frequently gives genitive singulars of first-declension nouns in -ai, which suggests he is not pronouncing them as [e:]. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The genitive ai found in folk like Virgil and Lucretius is a deliberate archaism, not an indication of how Latin was behaving synchronically. Note also that when you find a dative in ai in later periods it is very often an imitation of the Greek Alpha Declension. Szfski (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, but not the only possible interpretation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then give me another reason why -ai, outside of early Latin, is found only in such poetry as aims at a "high" (read: archaic) diction. More to the point, if [aj] really was the way Virgil was naturally pronouncing his a-declension genitives, then why does he sporadically represent it with idiosyncratic orthography, seeing as Æ would do just fine in that case? In the classical world, the only reason to avail oneself of such orthography would be to indicate a difference in pronunciation. Szfski (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Viridiplantae

Please take it to the plant article talk page Talk:plant where the issue is being discussed rather than continuing to revert. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i was blocked

Hi, I understand why you have blocked my addition.I actually asked somebody at your end if it would be o.k and they said they weren't sure about the link - which is what i assume you did not accept. Would it be o.k to add the word (with no link) "ultraspace" and what I believe to be its definition ...i.e - [ultraspace /uhl-truh spayss/ noun : an ultimate spatial environment] because it really does make sense - and the word does not yet exist. I would like to create this as the definition.

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraspace01 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a novel combination makes sense does not mean it is suitable for addition. Wehn the entry was deleted, a warning message should have appeared for you explaining that it was a protologism, and that a protologism should not be reentered without supporting evidence. You proceded to re-enter that word, and are now asking me to let you enter the word again, still without any evidence to support it. We don't do that. We have minimal requirements for acceptable Wiktionary entries, including three durably archived citations spanning a three year period. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

So are you saying "day" should be linked? It was a totally irrelevant link. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When was the last time that article was linked from the Main Page?: You could say that for the vast majority of our nearly three million articles. Overlinking is to be avoided on Main Page. What you are suggesting is against general consensus, and if you have doubts or different ideas I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Main Page. P.S. I would have already updated "next queue" by now if you haven't distracted me with this largely unnecessary message. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

More Than Weird

Hi! I wrote a page about a young adult novel called more than weird. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_than_weird Could you edit it please? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Macrocystis pyrifera

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Macrocystis pyrifera, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this editation. The source for that Czech article was not a newest one and this taxon was apparently missing. PS: I found out that you were a co-author of the archaea featured article. I translated it into Czech, so once again, thanks ;) --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Není zač! I will be updating the Wikispecies pag on Bryophyta later today, but you can already see the reference I used, listed there as Goffinet & Buck, 2004. I waited 5 years to see whether their revised system would be adopted by the bryological community before making the change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Moss

Hi. Please remove the semiprotection from Moss. Ta, cygnis insignis 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:PP "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism". The page was being vandalized heavily every time protection expired, so I have applied the quoted principle. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The filter tags would identify much of the vandalism the page has received. The few incidents of persistent vandalism are some months apart, and could have been resolved with a block. I don't think this is an example of "heavy vandalism", requiring permanent semi-protection. IPs are allowed to edit our articles, unless there is overwhelming reason to deny all of them that. cygnis insignis 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The incidents are months apart because the page was protected (short-term) in the interim, and not because vandalism stopped on its own. The majority of edits made to the page (by far) during the year 2008 consisted of vandlism and reversion of vandalism. When a page is vandalised multiple times in a given day or week, and the vandalism is more common by far than constructive edits to the page, the vandalism is "heavy". If you have an issue with a WP policy, the place to discuss it is on the talk page for that policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Occasional spurts, by one or two ips, months apart. The page has been vandalised, but only sporadically, and this was reverted by a number of users. I don't have a problem with the policy, just your interpretation of heavy vandalism. A huge amount of pages would need to be protected in this page's history justifies an assertion of heavy vandalism.

Reverting is easy, a bot has done this, protection is not to stop any vandalism that might occur. cygnis insignis 19:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not read all of my last response, and have made statements that don't agree with the facts I pointed out to you. Policy allows me some discretion in this matter, and you disagree. I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I read you ... loud and clear. cygnis insignis 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Prod of Patrick Bertoletti

I asserted in the prod that "This article is essentially a list of unsubstantiated feats by a person of dubious notability (coverage is limited to competitions, not Bertoletti directly). It is also presented in a stylistically inappropriate manner, without regard for the relative importance of the many facts." You removed the prod template, with an edit summary that stated: "deprod - The subject of the article is a top competitor; poor article quality is not in itself a reason for deletion".

The principal reason for the prod was a lack of notability (note that a web search doesn't appear to show that he's been the subject of significant non-trivial coverage in secondary sources). The quality of the article was noted, because without the poor-quality material (largely trivia), there would be essentially no article left.

As an example, Google returns 7680 hits for "Patrick Bertoletti". The first is his Wikipedia page, followed by MySpace, Twitter, various photo galleries, and the like (not reliable secondary sources). The highest-ranking media coverage is a Forbes blurb on the second page; this asks two short questions about his desired last meal and most memorable meal, and doesn't reveal anything important about Bertoletti. Contrast that lack of coverage with fellow competitive eater Takeru Kobayashi, whose article is well-sourced, and whose notability is easily ascertained.

Would you be willing to clean this article up, and find appropriate sources for the material in it? Or might you come to accept the reasoning behind the prod, and replace it? TheFeds 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can find appropriate sources in the next couple of weeks, I will add them. In any case, I do not agree with the {prod}; it is at best a duplication of the notability concerns already on the page under the biographies notability template you have added. The {prod} template is for uncontested deletion only. If the deletion is contested, then {prod} is inappropriate, regardless of any other concerns.

I also disagree with the label of "trivia" to the information presented. The facts presented are titles and records won, akin to the accomplishments of athletes in more traditional sports. Just as those records and accomplishments will be listed for those athletes, so Bertoletti's records and achievements are an appropriate part of his article. There may be a better way to format them, but that does not make them "trivia".

My own search on Google does not match yours. When I search for "Patrick Bertoletti", the top result I get is his homepage, not his WP page (which does not even show up in the top 10 returns). The highest-ranking news articles I get are a collection of article in the NY Daily News. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you searching with or without the quotation marks? (I searched Google with them, but actually, the WP page is first, with or without.) The NY Daily News item on the top of the 3rd page goes to a category listing ("Topics: Patrick Bertoletti"), which contains four articles detailling two separate competitions, and none of the articles state substantially more than Bertoletti's standing in the events—that's not coverage for the purposes of notability. Not to mention that the Daily News is arguably not even a reliable source (it's a deliberately sensationalist tabloid, but I suppose they have no axe to grind over an eating competition).

Don't misunderstand the trivia label: just as you wouldn't expect to see a list of every title or match won by Bobby Fischer in his article—no matter how obscure the event or insignificant the opponent—it makes no sense to list things like "Jalapenos, Pickled: 98 Pickled Jalapeno Peppers after 47 donuts / 5 Minutes". By contrast, it would be fully appropriate to discuss major accomplishments with encyclopedic prose (so for example, the Fischer article discusses his championship matches). Presenting these facts without context, attribution or assessment of their importance in a short-form list isn't really helping the article.

Speaking of the {{prod}} tag, it's not really duplicating the notability tag. Notability is a general requirement: fail that, and the article should be removed. The {{prod}} tag suggests the deletion on those grounds, while the {{notability}} tag brings it to the attention of readers and editors. I understand that you're contesting the prod, and that's fine—that's how these things are supposed to work, after all. My original post was intended to inquire whether you had misread the rationale (because you only addressed one aspect of it in your edit summary) and would be amenable to reconsidering, or if you felt that his notability was sufficient in the first place and the prod was unwarranted.

Incidentally, as a BLP, the article should be particularly well-sourced. Go ahead and track down some more comprehensive coverage of Bertoletti and improve the article. TheFeds 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fungus

Hi Encyclopetey. I've just modified the Fungus entry here by re-inserting "specifically adapted" instead of your preferred wording "well-suited. You have reasoned that the former implies some evolutionary pressure, which is correct. So I've included a reference that highlights the importance of hyphal growth for pathogenesis and virulence, which are evolutionary traits that require hyphal growth (also called filamentation in the world of researchers working with human fungal pathogens), for example, for tissue invasion. There are other papers that may be more focussed on the role of hyphal growth in evolutionary adaptation, but so far I uncovered only subscription-only ones, whereas the paper I cite is free. Please have a look at the section in question to see whether this accommodates your concern. Thanks a lot for pointing this out and for your many other contributions this entry. Malljaja (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this does not accomodate my concern. Showing that a feature is currently well-suited for a function does not demonstrate that it evolved for that reason. The phrasing "specifically adapted" implies not only current suitability, but implies that those were the evolutionary pressures that caused appearance of the trait in the first place. This is something that has not yet been determined for the Fungi, in part because the early evolution of the Fungi is so incompletely known. So I stand by the change that I made as more accurate and less misleading. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seed

Is there any other way it could be said other than "tastes bad"? The section is about the plant protecting the seeds from being consumed from any animal, so I think "tastes bad" is not broad enough to cover any animal. For example humans enjoy mustard seed, but rabbits would not. Or how hot peppers protect the seeds by capsaicin, which is an irritant to mammals but not to birds. Mech Aaron (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

None that I can think of. The term is subjective, but then so is the "defence", as you have noted. There are more obscure ways to say this, but they all mean "tastes bad". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Oh well. Mech Aaron (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Plant

Hey there. I'm going to be doing some editing (hopefully improving!) our main article and I wondered if you can kind of keep an eye on me over there. I'm no bryologist, so I worry I'll be neglecting these groups. Whenever you have the time. It already needs some tempering as it's heavily vascular plant-oriented. Hope all is well with you. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, but your timing is bad. The school year is due to resume soon, which will severely limit my time for other things. I did start notes for revising the Phaeophyceae, and will be trying to do that before school starts. Things are mostly fine, thanks, if you don't include the financial situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no worries then. I'll take it slow, anyway. It's a big task - the article is really a mess and needs a lot of work. I'll try to keep my vascular plant-POV to a minimum! Rkitko ^(talk) 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Buxbaumia

Would you like to list this for next year's April fools' day DYKs? If the waiting is ok with you, we can keep it for that. Please respond soon, we don't want too many people to see it now do we? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the decision up to you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Queue 3

Um... That land grant said it was in Mexico (I now see that it was in California!), but the plant was native to Western Australia. So we were both half right. Sorry! --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

9 hooks

I noticed you put 9 hooks in prep 1 because of a backlog. I don't think there's a backlog though. On average the DYK noms page has ~200 hooks, ~50 verified. When the bot is fully functioning, it usually decreases the number of available hooks, and we've had to decrease the number of hooks per set down to 6 before. The bot skipped two sets yesterday, so there's a bit more than usual, but I think it's best to stick with 8. We may need to go down to 7 or 6 within a week. (Thank you for helping out at DYK by the way.) Shubinator (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to help out regularly, but spend most of my time on Wiktionary. I disagree about the backlog, though. All 6 queues are loaded, as well as P1 and part of P2, and we still have seven days of hooks in the noms and people complaining about the page size. I have been working to halp reduce the page size while I still have time to help out (school starts soon). --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to disagree. At the beginning of the year it was much worse. The page size issue seems to be independent of the number of noms (not that it doesn't change load times, but people that say it's slow will still say it's slow with 30 fewer hooks). In the past we've gone down to 7 at around 100 noms on the noms page. Shubinator (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! I've heard it said somewhere that "agree to disagree" means "I know you're right but I can't be bothered to argue with you."  :)

I know what you mean about the early part of the year. The last time I was heavily involved in DYK was December/January a year-and-a-half ago. We didn't have the bot automation, Queues or second prep area then, so BorgQueen and I were working like crazy for several days without much additional help. I burnt out on DYK for a while after that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Corazon

I listed it as a new article not an expanded one. It was nominated for AfD hindering the process of it being nominated anywhere else, and that should have been taken into consideration in reviewing it. Since it continued to expand I should remain treated as a "new" article.--23prootie (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To be considered as a "new" article, it must be no more than 5 days old (please read the rules). By the time it was nominated, the article was 9 days old already, so it could not qualify as a "new" article under the DYK Rules. It could only be considered as an exansion at that time, and the expansion was insufficient. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But the length of time it spent on the Articles ofr deletion should have been taken on account since it hindered it from being nominated for DYK or ITN. Since it was nominated immediately after it was created, it should have been treated as a new article only when that nomination expired. --23prootie (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The article was nominated on the 10th, but was created on the 1st. So, it was nominated 9 days after creation, which is well after after the 5 day period for DYK to consider an article "new". Nothing prevented it from being nominated, only from being selected while the AfD occurred. Sorry, but the delay has indeed made the article ineligible under our Rules. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and the MilMos

I'll let you in on a little secret: our Military MoS states in part that

"Note that some articles contain per-paragraph citations, so checking the citations at the end of a paragraph may yield information about facts or figures in the paragraph as a whole."

As a result of this many milhist editors - myself included - round citations, so in this case the information in the 250 place lost statement is in fact cited; it can be found by check the information for cite 10. If you this to be somewhere else let me know on my talk page and I'll reorganize the article so the info you need cited is cited. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Will telling you again about the DYK requirements make any difference? What the Military MoS says is irrelevant for DYK. If you are still unsure, please go look at the requirements yourself, as I've already tried to explain them to you. This has nothing to do with anyone's style, it's a requirement for being featured in DYK. The article does not have to appear in DYK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what we have here is a good faith failure to communicate. So lets simplify both positions and then move from there:

Position one. Sentence A. Sentence B.[10] - information in both sentences is sourced

Position two: Sentence A. Sentence B.[10] - information in sentence A is unsourced because cite appears only for Sentence B.

Is this correct so far? Or have I missed something? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Position 2 is correct for DYK. Facts must be immmediately traceable back to their source, and for long complex sentences, this can mean placing a reference mid-sentence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) DYK position: The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable. We aren't trying to say whether the sentence is or isn't sourced; we are saying that it isn't enough for DYK. Shubinator (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I see what the problem is: In my capacity as coordinator I'm using to chewing out people for citing the same info to the same cite at the end of every sentence because if its all being cited tot eh same source then you can round. That mentality apparently doesn't extend to this process, the rule is that the cite - even if a repeat - must be attached to the hook in question or its considered uncited for purposes of the DYK-process. Therefore, the problem was that we were both in belief that we were in the right, when in reality in this case I am apparently in the wrong. Thank you for working with me to clarify this, and please accept my apology for this affair. I will look into addressing both the initial DYK hook problem and this hook problem when I get back to the house later this evening. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Spontaneous CSF Leak GA review

Dear EncycloPetey, thank you very, very much for your recent review of the above article. I've taken time to go through all of your points and (mostly) correct them. There are a few outstanding ones that I would appreciate your feedback on. Do you think you might be able to comment Talk:Spontaneous_cerebrospinal_fluid_leak/GA2#GA_Review_2 here when you have a chance? Thanks so much!!! Basket of Puppies 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wallace Souza DYK

Ciao, Petey. I notice you added a hook from this article to the DYK prep area. I'm concerned it was inappropriate for the Main Page and have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Wallace_Souza which I invite you to contribute to. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy!

Good fix on the double punctuation. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Buxbaumia/GA1

Hi EP, was wondering if you saw the initial comments I made about coverage, and if you agree with them. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. I've been offline most of the past two days. I'll look at them today or tomorrow. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions as a second opinion at Talk:Buxbaumia/GA1. Are you happy to move forward on that basis? --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because you did not address my concerns about problems in the process. I've responded there already. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Archaea

Your edits have introduced multiple grammatical errors and removed information. Please note the policy WP:3R, which you are in danger of violating. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then show me one please. Do you realize that your edit reintroduced factual error? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk)

Talkback

Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at Skittleys's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skittleys (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at Skittleys's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skittleys (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

hey e-p

You block me for three days because I cleaned up a couple links? In one case, and article linked to itself, so I removed the link without changing the wording. In another, it claimed to link to an article on the transcription key, when it did not; I redirected it to an article on the transcription key. You revert both. Has your medication run out? Are you still pretending that you're in charge of a new phonetic system, when you've merely appropriated the AHD system? I'm not sure if the latter is copyright infringement, but it's definitely plagiarism, and I'm blocked for trying to give credit to our sources? Without warning or discussion? I imagine if I blocked you on WP for an edit I didn't like, you'd object - I expect you to unblock me. kwami (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for your editing policy-related in contravention of a decision made by the community in a Wiktionary vote. This is not the first time you have done that. You have now lied about not changing the wording; since the edit history clearly shows that you changed the wording. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The diff clearly shows I did *not* change the wording, unless you consider placing the linked name ahead of the synonym to be "changing the wording". For me, "changing the wording" implies changing the words--but maybe that's just me. But your accusations of me lying when I clearly am not suggests either that you have no moral standards, are a hypocrite, or that you have a tenuous connection to reality. kwami (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The term wording means "choice and arrangement of words" (Webster's New World Dictionary). Since you changed the arrangement (thereby altering the emphasis and meaning), you changed the wording. Please keep Wiktionary discussions on Wiktionary, and do not bring them to other projects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a "lie". And I can't keep wiktionary discussions on wiktionary if you block me from editing wiktionary, you moron. kwami (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Anybot's algae articles...

Hey, Pete. Could I just draw your attention back to this? In your post, you said that there were a few other Anybot-created redirects that were good and worth keeping. Any chance that you could indicate which ones? I've already removed the few specific examples you pointed out from my 'to delete' list. Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The "few others" were ones I'm unsure about, and don't really have the time to investigate properly at this time. If they're lost, I don't think it would be any great problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Thanks again for taking the time to verify the ones you've already done... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your WQA on Kwamikagami

I am not sure why you are still pursuing this after the WQA has been closed. My comment was intended to be read as a balance to the preceding comment in the WQA, which suggested that Kwamikagami should be subjected to a further block. The issue I was addressing was the propriety of an administrator blocking a long established and thoroughly serious editor, as though he was a fly by night vandal, and without a proper and respectful process. Any way you look at it, 1600 blocks is a lot of blocks. It may that that is the norm for Wiktionary administrators, and it may be that, because of the particular circumstances od Wiktionary, the blocks are appropriate. But it is still a lot of blocks, and, since I presume you are happy with them, the term "block happy" is appropriate.

There is an issue about whether Wiktionary is a safe environment for content editors. When Kwamikagami protested in the appropriate forum, his protests were quickly squashed by other administrators. It was striking that no non-administrators participated, which raises the question of whether non-administrators on Wiktionary feel it is safe to express views. To me it looked like administrators circling the wagons.

Sure Kwamikagami should not have come to Wiktipedia and vented in the way he did on your talk page. That point was already established in the WQA. But I find it strange that you seem to have no empathy with how an editor as well established as Kwamikagami would feel in the circumstances. Kwamikagami asked you how you would have felt if the circumstances were reversed, and you did not respond. So, to reiterate what I said in the WQA, given the aggravating circumstances, it is entirely understandable that Kwamikagami would react the way he did. I am also concerned that you have made no attempt to listen to Kwamikagami, and to respectfully response to his concerns. It is always, in my view, a very serious matter if an administrator appears to ride roughshod over a serious content editor. You are the only administrator who has ever seen fit to block Kwamikagami in his long editing history, and you have done it twice.

At another level, I have noticed that Wiktionary definitions in marine science and fisheries are often inadequate or misleading, sometimes outright wrong, and frequently missing. It has been my intention sometime to go there and clean these matters up. However, looking at Kwamikagami's experience, I am wondering is that is a safe thing to do, and maybe it would be better to just remove references to Wiktionary from Wiktipedia articles in these areas.

However, these impressions are based purely on what happened to Kwamikagami. I haven't looked further into Wiktionary, and what happened to Kwamikagami may not be representative. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikipedia with Wiktionary. Kwami may have a long editing history here, but not on wiktionary. He may be an administrator here, but he is not an administrator on Wiktionary. He may be familiar with policy and procedure here, but he is not familiar with policy and procedure on Wiktionary. Kwami's actions on Wiktionary seriously violated community practice, and other admins correctly pointed this out to him. Kwami has tried this before on Wiktionary, and has before been told that the content he changed had been accepted by vote. He has no defense for continuing to push his own view over the consensus of the Wiktionary community. He has no defense foe abusive language. I do not understand why you continue to defend his misbehavior.

Did you read my responses on to Kwami on my talk page? I opened a fair dialogue, and received abuse for it. I also asked him to keep Wiktionary issues on Wiktionary, and again received abuse. Under the circumstances, would you have conituned making an attempt to listen, if all that was being said was abusive?

I am sorry that you feel that the relationship between MW projects must be antagonistic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Museum Herbarium

The "several million" is from a guide compiled by staff of the Museum so as an official publication of the University it was presumably current at the time. It is unlikely that specimens were disposed of in the period since then though they are being slowly recorded on a computerised database by volunteers (begun before 1985). I will try and investigate further since if one mln is inaccurate the item might move up the list.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A later briefer guide gives more detailed numbers: over one million in total; Charles Bailey collection (350,000); J. Cosmo Melvill collection (200,000); Leo Grindon's cultivated plants (39,000); Richard Spruce's liverworts etc. (16,500). Additions are still being made to the collection. There will be a longer account in the e Link for the Manchester Museum: this now has a total near the one mln: "There are about one million specimens, together with associated data such as the name of the collector and the place and date of collection." So the 1985 citation should really come out again.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion: I feel it is unlikely to help in this case. In 140 years of collecting it seems to be centralised though smaller herbaria might exist elsewhere in the University, e.g. School of Biological Sciences, etc. I should really have passed over this but the whole Manchester Museum article is obviously defective until recently there was no account of the Herbarium and the only thorough one was for Malacology (only a section within Zoology anyway). I hope to come back to this within 2 days.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lycopsid

Good morning! If "lycopsid" refers to Lycopodiopsida, then the redirect from that word should be changed as it leads to lycopodiophyta at this point. Best regards and thanks for fixing my mistake. --CopperKettle 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

While "lycopsid" is an entirely correct term, in my experience "lycophyte" is a more frequent usage.jaknouse (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox check

Could you check the accuracy of the taxobox Schistidium antarctici? Several other Antarctic moss stubs were created around the same time and would like to adapt the taxobox if it's reusable. Best regards, Durova³⁶² 05:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't spot any problems. You can use this site as a source for the most current moss classification down to the generic level. The only caveat is that there are some large and common genera (and families) that have undergone major revisions recently, especially in the Mniaceae and Pottiaceae. It is possible that some of the Antarctic species have been reassigned as far as their genus. You won't be able to determine this from the Goffinet listing, since it only covers the classification down to the level of genus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Archaea

Sorry if I messed up there. Is there a way of linking sound files with IPA to WP:IPAEN while keeping the "help/info" template? Lfh (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if the templates are revised. With the current templates, you have to pick one or another feature. Working on wiktionary, I've seen many complaints that Microsoft systems don't ordinarily support ogg sound files. Until they choose to do so, we need technical help links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. A lot of sound files presently do not use the technical help links, so I didn't know they had priority over IPA links. Can you point me to the relevant guidelines? I do appreciate the "info" links, simply for convenience in my case. One option is to pipe the word "pronounced" instead to the relevant WP:IPA page. Lfh (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the guidelines for pronunciation here on Wikipedia, as I work mostly on Wiktionary. I can point you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), but I'm not sure whether it covers this issue specifically. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion at Template_talk:IPA-en (assuming it's technically possible). AFAIK the same applies to all the {IPA-xx} templates, so you may want to raise this issue at Template_talk:IPA, Template_talk:IPA-all or Template_talk:Usage_of_IPA_templates as well. Lfh (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Süßwassertang

Yeah, the link to the Monosolenium thing reference is at Süßwassertang (which is a redirect to Süsswassertang; Susswassertang also redirects there. I used the German common name rather than the Latin name because the species has not been positively confirmed. IMHO, it needs to be described as a new Lomariopsis species.jaknouse (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BD2412/200,000th edit party

You're invited! bd2412 T 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak

Dear EncycloPetey, hi!! How are you doing? I am ok and busy editing. Some months ago you helped out at Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak by doing a GA review. The article failed then, but it recently underwent a peer review and significant changes were made in the article, layout, format, etc. At this point I am wondering if you might consider doing an additional GA review. Thanks so much!! Basket of Puppies 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not devoting that kind of time to WP right now, and if I did I already have a couple of important time-consuming projects in the pipe. While I'd like to do a review, I just don't have the time needed to devote the effort it would require to do it right. Sorry. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)