User talk:KP Botany/Archive 1

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial (this is really great for getting used to editing Wikipedia)
How to write a great article
Manual of Style

Also, don't worry too much about being perfect.

It might be a good idea to read this to see how you can avoid making common mistakes, though.

neutral point of view Wikipedia:Questions, Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Geraniaceae

Betulaceae
Boraginaceae (No apomorphies/characteristics described)
Cannabaceae (This one is ridiculous!)
Crassulaceae (No gereral characteristics/apomorpies described)
Cucurbitaceae (Too short for such an economically important family)
Cyperaceae (No photos, no apomrphies... Nothing!)
Fabaceae (No description, we need a picture to describe the flower of Faboideae -I could take it if it wasn't winter!-; Papilionaceae redirects to Fabaceae, shouldn't it redirect to Faboidea?)
Fagaceae (No apomorphies)
Malvaceae (Edit war about taxonomy, needs to be rewritten, more about morphology)
Polygonaceae (No apomorphies described, no pictures)
Rosaceae (Much about taxonomy but no apomorphies/characteristics)
Rubiaceae
Saliceae (Ok, it's always like that: no apomorphies, no general characteristics, no photos...)
Scrophulariaceae
Violaceae (is this an article or a stub?)
Urticaceae

I could take care of the bold ones when I have the time/zeal. I don't feel enough self-confident about the taxonomy to modify Fabaceae, Malvaceae, Rosaceae, and Scrophulariaceae; any APG expert here. Volunteers needed. Aelwyn 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formats for tables

(section 4/5) Help:Table --Lethaniol

|What is transclusion? |To use the contents of a template, you insert markup into the destination page that looks like this: {{tilde}}. When the page is rendered by the engine, the double braces tell it to transclude or copy the template contents into the rendered page. Any page can be transcluded but templatespace is specifically intended for the purpose.

John Reid

Ak Koyunlu

Thanks, but I know why we use talk pages. I just get lazy sometimes. :-) Cheers, Khoi khoi 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KP, I really don't need people lecturing me on how to compromise. I am able to see both sides of the argument, as I often mediate on many pages. I wasn't even really edit warring, I just made one revert, which I already provied an explanation for at User talk:Karcha#Ottoman Turkish. I really think you should be telling this to other users. Khoi khoi 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but I already do that. Not always, as you have proven, but for the most part I usually discuss changes on the talk page. Khoi khoi 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You'll find what you're looking for at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Welcoming_new_users. Sandstein 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion KP Botany 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

Thanks for your comments. You may be interested in a technical issue here. Cheers Tony 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem with GA: since anyone can promote, it really means nothing. Further, it's a process that drains editor time and effort from other areas (peer review and FA). I've no use for it. If I felt it was a good use of my time, I could nominate legions of bad GA articles for delisting there, but since I don't think GA has any meaning, I don't think it's a good way to spend my time. Anyway, good to see a good reviewer around! Sandy (Talk) 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KP, I saw this message and I am looking into it. Try to calm down (if possible), and I'll respond as quickly as I can. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. The very first time I ever posted a message on the AN page, with detailed diffs and explanations, it was completely ignored. I know your frustration, having been there myself; I am looking. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KP I put a link on the Eriogonum page to an article I'm writing about the Harper's umbrella plant and was wondering if I could impose on your good will to come by and critique the new article?Trilobitealive 04:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:El Greco

I'm not annoyed by your comments. After all, criticism makes us better. I'm sorry if my tone appeared to you inappropriate, but, sincerely, this is my style, and I do not intend to offend anybody. I will do my best to further improve the article, but again do not ask me to produce miracles (such as writing a better article than Wethey's in Britannica, for instance!). I still disagree about the lead, but we cannot agree on everything in Wikipedia. Cheers!--Yannismarou 20:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I understand your philosophy, but I cannot fully endorse it (maybe because of my jurist backround!). I have started commenting on your comments and initiating minor "improvements" (?). Read them, whenever you have time. Goodnight from Athens!--Yannismarou 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Earth

I saw your post on the "History of Earth" talk page. To answer your question: a request was made with the sporadically-defunct Scientific Peer Review, but nothing came of it. I don't think the article ever went through the normal peer review process either. I know at one point Knowledge Seeker was actively seeking scrutiny by someone with a scientific background, so I'm sure it would be much appreciated and most helpful. -- bcasterline • talk 06:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocrates

Could you please visit Hippocrates and see if your concerns have been addressed? Its still in FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oceans of Kansas

Seeing the AfD on Palaeos led me to the shocking realization that there isn't an article on the Oceans of Kansas website, so I started one.[1] Please add anything if you can, so we can avoid discussing it at all. Also, I'm surprised as all get out that the Smoky Hill Chalk isn't on Wikipedia! But that will take more than a couple of hours to start. KP Botany 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some prettifying and such; will try to work on the article later. Actually, most geological formations don't have any article on Wikipedia. [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/formations Here's] a short list. Feel free to expand the list or create some articles. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "group" of editors using the same computer according to check user:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN073850677X&id=8Nw2XHOGMh8C&pg=RA1-PA45&lpg=RA1-PA45&ots=QwMq0tN3lQ&dq=cc+poindexter&sig=qEsqC2VCOC593uF1lGzEAJ-m5HM

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/1348/1/V04N01_003.pdf

172.197.40.4 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem

Happy to help with the spelling on Thermal optimum. I didn't nominate the AfD but I'll try to weigh in on it since it certainly doesn't seem suited for deletion. Glancing over the article, if you're going to do more work on it, I'd suggest seeing about lowering the level of jargon, simplifying the language, and wikifying it a bit more, particularly the word "enzymes". I don't think I'm undereducated and I still had a little trouble following it. Just a suggestion. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My current pet peeve is the innumerable non-notable American high school articles. I know I'm going against the tide but I just don't believe every school needs a Wikipedia entry. I've put a few articles up for deletion where it wasn't at all obvious to me why the subject was notable because of brevity and lack of references. And I've withdrawn them from deletion consideration when, in the AfD, the notability was explained to my satisfaction. It does look like a hard slog in this particular AfD though. Best of luck. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hippocrates

Hello again. I wonder if you'd re-address the matter of Hippocrates' FA nom. The article has gone through significant revisions (numerous, independent copyrights) since your last comment on it, and I expect you will now find it satisfactory: it has been, as you requested, "polished and clarified". Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't mean to bug you, but the FAC will probably be closed very soon, and your vote might push it over the line. Thanks again. -- Rmrfstar 11:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rodriguez and Chelsea

I have withdrawn the PR request, at both general PR and the ProjectBiography PR (and I do know how dedicated those editors are, since I both assess and review at ProjectBiography). Also, regarding the Chelsea piece: I won't be making any edits to it at all. I had considered it, but after Googling them and getting less than 40 unique hits, many unusable, I decided that they were simply not notable enough for me to invest substantial time in researching and writing about them. Maybe that sounds harsh, but I am stretched thin with my other commitments here. Jeffpw 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learjet 35/36

Advertisement? There is no rhetoric in that article. It is just like many other aircraft articles: a straight representation of the facts. If you feel it is similar to an advertisement, why don't you recommend specific changes, rather than taking the easy way out and slapping a {{advert}} tag on it? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Have restructured and rewritten large parts of the Punk rock article. It's up for renewal this weekend, and seeing as how your comments largely sparked the rewrite, some feedback before the axe falls would be great. It seems I only ever turn up asking for things, sorry about that. + Ceoil 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Copley

No, thank you for rewriting an article on an otherwise interesting subject. I also responded on the speedy deletion talk page. Cool Hand Luke 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thanks for your positive vote on Sunset Coast and a sensible debate has been made. Thanks!--Alfeewusy 09:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You left me a message saying I encouraged vandalism. What he said isn't vandalism, he said what he thought. In some cases, what he said is true. I'm not encouraging him to vandalize Talk pages, but to express his feelings on the Sandbox. And if you don't like what he has to say, reset the Sandbox. Alright? I'm not encouraging vandalism. -Yancyfry

Oh, sorry. I should've checked his contributions. My bad. -Yancyfry

Sheesh

My lord, you get a guilt trip on Bob's talk page on top of everything else. The Rodriguez refs were all ok when last I checked them. I saw the m edits, and figured is he wanted to spin his wheels no harm would be done. Sorry I didn't go take a look. I will check out all the changes after dinner. Jeffpw 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue raised on my talk page

Hi, thanks for getting back so promptly with something not directly related to the article botany. Re: copyright issue - public domain is stated from the project page I went to, to source the material. But I don't go there much - so please give me a little bit of time before dropping copyvio flag on the article. I will get back to you on this one.Ga rr ie 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADB indicates the Dictionary of Australian Biography is public domain... I took their word for it.

From Project Gutenberg of Australia

Project Gutenberg of Australia produces books in electronic form (ebooks) which are freely available to the public. These ebooks may be read on a computer using a simple text editor or viewer. The books are in the 'public domain' and all have been prepared by volunteers. More than 20,000 other ebooks are available from our sister site Project Gutenberg in the United States.

Hope this clears the copyright issue up. Ga rr ie 01:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this link which states

Project Gutenberg of Australia eBooks are created from printed editions which are in the public domain in Australia, unless a copyright notice is included

No copyright notice is included on any of the DICTIONARY OF AUSTRALIAN BIOGRAPHY pages. The text is in the public domain. The e-book is copyrighted to Project Gutenberg under the licence linked above.

I comply with both limitations of that licence by not including their trademark, by not using their header, and I'm not sourcing an explicitly copyrighted eBook so limitation 2 is not applicable. I have added a template to the article which states the text is public domain in the US and Australia. If you think this is not correct go to the talk page for the template and discuss your concerns there. If that template is in error then there will be hundreds of articles impacted not just this one. Ga rr ie 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further - from public domain - Consequently, their copyright expiry times are still life of the author plus 50 years. Searle died in 1951 so his works are in the public domain in Australia. That is why the Project Gutenberg website can reproduce them. I am reproducing Searle's work, via a reproduction from Project Gutenberg. They hold copyright of the e-book but not the text, because the text is in the public domain.Ga rr ie 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to archive?

Hi I am having problems submitting content to your talk page. Would you please mind archiving some older content? Ga rr ie 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Explorers

If you have a minute can you look over John Carne Bidwill, taken largely from the public domain, and add or enhance in any way? Thanks, either way. KP Botany 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a play around. Some more info:

No Australian plants were published by Bidwill. Thelychiton kingianus (Bidwill ex Lindl.) M.A.Clem. & D.L.Jones was given its name by Bidwell, but published by Lindley as Dendrobium kingianum, and later moved to genus Thelychiton by Clements and Jones. The following Australian plants appear to have been named after him: Akania bidwillii, Fitzalania bidwillii, Ozothamnus bidwillii, Tephrosia bidwillii, Cryptocarya bidwillii, Muellerina bidwillii, Acacia bidwillii, Vachellia bidwillii, Babingtonia bidwillii, Gossia bidwillii, Quassia bidwillii, Brachychiton bidwillii.

Hesperian 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One of my bugbears: {{cquote}} is for pullquotes. Hesperian 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that it wasn't you who wrote the page; sorry, I should have dumped this stuff on Garrie's page. Hesperian 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with IPNI? Hesperian 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You referred to "to see if there was more than one Bidwill". IPNI declares that there was not, but as you say IPNI only lists publishers of plants, and not all plants are named for botanists. I was unaware of Stern; when you get to it, would you mind also seeing whether you can shed some light on a similar discussion at Talk:Nancy Tyson Burbidge#Plants.3F? Hesperian 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Hi, you might want to change "aritcles" to "articles". -- Jeff G. 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure I want to change "aritcles" to "articles," but where? I'm not even offended when people spellcheck my edit summaries, as someone once did. KP Botany 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't more specific. I meant in the section title "User:KP Botany#Current aritcles that need major work". -- Jeff G. 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my new article Aritcle. :) -- Jeff G. 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surfline

Thx for the offer of help, I didn't realize how tricky this would be when I started, so perhaps simply deleting it and starting over would be the best bet.

Fairy-wren

Thanks! Tell me how it turns out (and how big). I have been thinking of doing that with a couple of my photos. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC poindexter

I feel that CC Poindexter should be included in the Alpha phi alpha article. your opinion? MrDouglass 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help + == - http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN073850677X&id=8Nw2XHOGMh8C&pg=RA1-PA45&lpg=RA1-PA45&ots=QwMq0tN3lQ&dq=cc+poindexter&sig=qEsqC2VCOC593uF1lGzEAJ-m5HM

Disappearing page

I swear I posted a list on the talk page at Talk:John Carne Bidwill, and it has completely disappeared. It took me over two hours to create, sort, format, and post this list--a lot of work for it to have disappeared. What happened? KP Botany 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's not good. It appears as though the list never entered the Wikipedia database. It's possible that your computer couldn't connect with the Wikipedia servers. :( ... nothing in the page history indicates that any list was ever entered. I sincerely hope that you still have the offline text for your list. If you're positive that you saw the list on the page itself, could you describe in detail what happened?

Thank you so much for putting together the list. If it is indeed lost (a sad proposition), please don't feel discouraged about putting it together again (in an external text editor, maybe, this time}. You have my respect for undergoing such a large project. Gracenotes ^T § 03:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it on the page, as I had to preview while editing, since I couldn't tell otherwise which plants were linked by species and which by genera only, if at all to various articles, and had to check the formatting since it had multiple italics, varieties that could not be italicized, and AFTER I posted it, I went back and clicked on Fabaceae from the page, since I forgot to check in the end whether I had moved the Acacias up to Fabaceae, since IPNI subdivides, then decided to check the Fabaceae as one of problem articles mentioned by another user, and clicked on Fabaceae on the Talk:John Carne Bidwill page from my post, then closed it, posted on the Talk:Plant page a comment about the Fabaceae, left my computer, came back because I got distracted by looking at the Fabaceae and the comment on plant page, and realized I hadn't checked on the Acacias, and it's gone. This is incredibly frustrating. KP Botany 03:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to know what happened, as all the articles I clicked on from the page, while editing, and previewing, and after posting it, show the links to have been visited. So, I'm not imagining that I posted it, but it's not there and it's not in the history, and I want to know what happened, so it doesn't happen again.

I don't think anyone can know for certain. It seems that you actually did click "save" and not simply a series of "show previews," so the post was submitted. According to the sequence of events you describe, that post was indeed saved on the server -- you were, after all, able to access it later. There doesn't seem to be anything you could have done differently. It must have been a glitch someone with the software or hardware. Such glitches are rare with today's computers but they still happen. I don't think we'll ever know what caused this one. SWAdair | Talk 04:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Stirling AfD

I'd appreciate it if you'd be a little less abbrasive in the AfD debate. Debate should be fair and level-headed. Instantly accusing someone with a different opinion to yours as being POV leads to intimidation and works against the goals of AfD. You seem to have misrepresented just about every point I made in the nomination. Please assume good faith in future, and try to understand what other editors are saying, rather than just shooting them down. Chovain^(t|c) 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but the debate did by clarify matters, and I think that continuing the emphasis on searching and searching properly will eventually get fairer results. I thank both of you. DGG 06:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin names

Following a 3-way discussion on my talk page (see User_talk:Pengo#Latin_name), I thought I better invite you to help with adding Latin species words to Wiktionary (see Wikt:User:Pengo/Latin). If you're interested, please help out :) Cheers —Pengo 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hancock

When AfD'd, PRODded, or speedy deleted, pages should never be blanked, no matter the circumstances. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquetry

Re: your message - Hey, cool that you know about marquetry! I don't have many pictures of my dad's stuff on my computer, but I uploaded something that he did recently. See you around! - Sasha Kopf 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question...perhaps an answer?

Did you perhaps have a question about Daniel Rodriguez? I haven't edited there since my last revert, but I suppose I could give it another go. I think Leah/Bob is probably over his wiki enthusiasm by now. And gack! You appealed yo my sense of decency and community! I could do nothing but comply! Check out my userpage now. :-) Jeffpw 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm between articles at the moment, and I have a long weekend, so I'll spend some time working on it to prepare it for a Peer Review. It shouldn't take much work to get it presentable, and I have no doubt we can get it to GA status soon. Jeffpw 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD You Told Me About

Thanks for the update, I rescinded my nomination. Just H 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by HighInBC

Thank you for adding your personal experience and knowledge to Wikipedia, we need more people who have specialized in a particular area contributing. As for no wiki tags, they are fairly simple.

Anything between nowiki tags will be shown plainly without parsing. You can click the edit button to look at how I did it in this example:

With nowiki tags:

[[Botany]]<ref>This is a reference</ref> '''References''' <references/>

Without nowiki tags:

Botany^[1]

References

^ This is a reference

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighInBC (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

common frustration

Re: Here we go again, do you mind if I copy and paste that whole discussion over to the Village pump where it will get more input from the community, or did you particularly want it on the admin noticeboard? — coelacan talk — 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't moved it yet; I'm going to wait a bit and see where this is going. Before I reply there again, help me out. commons:Category:Aristolochia is a subcategory of commons:Category:Aristolochiaceae, so travelling down the category tree, one can find Aristolochia down a normal traversal of the taxonomic tree. Is this incorrect? Is there a compelling reason that a species should appear separately in both the genus and the family categories? — coelacan talk — 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual objectification

Thanks for the second on the Barnstar!! An issue that Atom raised was on the Sexual objectification page - I put a photo from Tara Subkoff's 2002 Fall Imitation of Christ fashion show. One of the vignettes showed models cordoned off by velvet ropes in heels and panties vacuuming. I thought this was a great addition as it demonstrates women's sexual objectification being used at, of all things, a fashion show. Two editors are seemingly against any photos on this page (including Atom); two editors have voice support. Would you weigh in with your opinion?--DavidShankBone 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Request for Comment section - want to venture a comment? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_comment:__Sexual_objectification. --DavidShankBone 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabaceae

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure that pointing me to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants is the way to make editing look fun :-). But hey, there is material over there other than flamewars over there... Heh. Kingdon 03:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about vegetation or flora of a region

What is the proper title for articles about the natural history of a region? If there were an article on the Geology of California, I see that that would be its title. Is this for all regions? Geology of Turkey? What about the flora or vegetation? I see Flora of California isn't an article, but California native plants is. Is there a page that discusses the ins and outs of article titles? KP Botany 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do your best to find what the norm is. I'd say Geology of and Flora of, but don't take my word for it. In any case, if you can't find a standard, just be bold and write the article anyway. At the worst it'll be moved. Xiner (talk, email) 00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to avoid the move, though, as it's in an already overly contentious area competing strongly as top contendor for most edit-warred country article ever created. It would be nice to get it done correctly the first time rather than adding to the edit war load. On top of which, AfD is going for a win in the most contentious laden area on the web. KP Botany 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've found the place to ask. In general, though, it would have been better to leave this question up for longer to someone who may have known the answer. Still, thanks for taking the time to answer questions by editors needing help. KP Botany 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please chime in if you have a view

There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.

Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.

That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.

We are gathering responses to the following questions on those projects' talk pages:

Do you have a view whether the WikiProject California tag should be removed from a large number of cities in Southern California?

Do you have a view whether city article for Southern California cities should have more than one WikiProject tag?

Please let us know if you have a view! Spamreporter1 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. KP Botany 18:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent proposal for WP:CAL and WP:SOCAL tags

User Spamreporter1 has made a proposal for the tagging issue. He was not previously involved with either project before seeing this discussion, and I belive that his opinion therefore is NPOV. The suggestion is that articles that have no state-wide scope be tagged only locally. Please go to this section on the SoCal page to provide input. —Scouter Sig 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not agree with my previous statement (as to Spamreporter's neutrality), his was the first attempt to keep the conversation on one page. While a good amount of discussion has ranged both pages, I think it would be best to keep it one one page, the SoCal page, because it was first suggested to stay there (and all the notes I left people request that page). Meh, there's lots of interpage links, hopefully people will find all the discussion. —Scouter Sig 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that the initial decision was incorrect and exlusionary, so it must be changed. KP Botany 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not exclusionary: links and notices were posted on both boards, and no one was told not to participate. And I don't know how it can be incorrect: both projects were created within hours of each other, and there are even more people signed up as participants in the SoCal project than the Cal project.—Scouter Sig 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, the SoCal folks simply don't have any concept of what is going on. KP Botany 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello – Based on your significant contribution to one or more San Francisco Bay Area-related articles and/or stated interests on your homepage, I thought you might be interested in this project:

You have been invited to join the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Bay Area. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Peter G Werner 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Late "The Late"

Love the subject heading, that's the point. I appreciate the kind words. I'm just trying to help WP out, and to hear things like that about my contributions is welcome to hear. I appreciate that you're doing articles/work on natural science, we need more editors to work on academic topics like that. Booshakla 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns

Hi, I don't mean to be a pest, but can you vote on the Pashtuns article? It's been a long time and it is still being "considered" and I just wanted to know how things stand now. I'd be much obliged and thanks for your valued input thus far. Ciao. Tombseye 21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright images on Wikipedia

Please only respond to this if you know enough about copyrighted images on Wikipedia and permissions to answer, thanks. Is it important that Wikipedia be sent permission to use an uploaded copyright image or not? I seem to be having difficulties with an editor who won't send or won't explicitly state that she has sent the permission--namely, I think the editor has been given permission to upload the copyrighted image to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia itself does not have the copyright holder's permission. From having copyright materials professionally printed myself, I can assure you that my having the permission is not sufficient for the printer to print the copyrighted materials, the printer must have permission. It seems to be that on Wikipedia it would be the same, that Wikipedia must be the one with the explicitly given permission to use the copyrighted image. KP Botany 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it might help if you could specify the image in question. It is hard to tell from your description, but permission for use on wikipedia only is not accepted, the permission would need to be to use the image under a free license. With permissions in our boilerplate request although individuals can request the permission to release under a suitable free license we ask that a copy of that is forwarded to wikipedia for archive purposes. --pgk 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I'm not making myself clear, but I don't think any copyright issues are ever clear. W

What I'm asking is, is it required to foward the permission to Wikipedia? In other words, if I post a copyrighted image that the photographer says I can post, do I then have to forward the photographer's permission to Wikipedia, or is it sufficient that I claim that he gave permission to upload the image to Wikipedia? The question has nothing to do with which license or commercial use, but only to do with who has been given the permission. Does Wikipedia have to have the permission of the copyright holder, or is it suffiecient that I, as the uploader, have permission of the copyright holder? Can we start there?KP Botany 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what pgk was trying to say is that permission to post the image on Wikipedia is not sufficient no matter who it comes from or goes to. The owner of the copyright must release the image to Wikipedia (or a third party) under a Free license (e.g., CC or GFDL). If the owner has given you permission to use the image under the terms of the GFDL, then you have permission to release it to Wikipedia under the GFDL. --Selket ^Talk 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the licensing to be secure, the permission should be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation from the photographer. In practice, if the photographer never complains or never has second thoughts, then there would not be much of a problem even if permission is not sent (and in effect that is what the situation is for any photographer who uploads his own images anyway). —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading my question. So, in practice, Wikipedia doesn't put much into the requirement to send permissions to use copyrighted materials, and someone uploading tons of images from various photographer and claiming their permission is working according to accepted practice? This one has the potential to come back to bite Wikipedia. Thanks for the answer. KP Botany 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if someone is uploading images from various photographers then it is copyright infringement and those images must be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if there is any issue with it, then permission must be explicitly obtained from the photographer, but if you were to happen to have permission from your friend to upload an image he took, then there would in practice be no issue with simply uploading it. If anyone is ever going to find the images uploaded, such as on another website, then the issue is going to be brought up and without permission the images will end up deleted. —Centrx→talk • 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just edit-conflicted myself. Sorry.

But since the photographer released them under a free license, it shouldn't become an issue with the photographer that they wind up elsewhere?

Here's an example [Image:Rubostipaanjajavycmichaelhogan.jpg] (I don't know how to make it a link without the image actually appearing on my page),

the image content page explicitly states it is copyright @2006 C.Michael Hogan,
but with the photographer's permission "Photographer has given the right to use this image per licencing below on jan 19, 2007,"
under a "This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5:"

Is this sufficient? KP Botany 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nubio 52 may be of interest.--Commander Keane 01:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's Nubio? Oh FAQs and not Wikpedia formatted! Readable! Bless you with extra servings of dessert. KP Botany 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems KP Botany is having a hard time getting a straight answer here. I'd like an answer to this question too. The question, as I understand it, is: to what extent is Wikipedia required to exercise due diligence regarding the uploading of copyrighted images? If User:Some Idiot uploads a copyrighted image and falsely claims to have permission to do so, and Wikipedia accepts that on face value, who is guilty of the consequent copyright violation? Hesperian 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically it is a real concern, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of Wikipedia's policy. As I said initially, when I get something printed, the printer has to be in possession of the permission slip or they won't print the material for me. Even with my own photographs, I'm often asked for a permission to print copyrighted material to get them commercially printed as snapshots! KP Botany 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a printer. It is a website and the DMCA grants certain safe-harbor rights to internet providers that act in good faith. That is, wikipedia is not liable as long as it promptly removes infringing content when asked to do so by the copyright holder. Wikipedia takes the responsibility one step further (see: WP:C) by encouraging anyone who knows that something violates copyright to take it down. There is an implicit permission slip for online postings in that, if you post something, you not wikipedia are liable for the copyright violation. If you have permission, then feel free to post away, but it would be nice of you to put the permission letter on the image's page as well. The ideal situation is for the owner to grant you usage under the GFDL, in which case you can (under the terms of the GFDL) release it to Wikipedia under the GFDL. --Selket ^Talk 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A highly satisfactory answer. Thankyou. Hesperian 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got an answer in the end. As a side issue if you want to link an image without including it simply add an extra : in from the the Image: bit, so [[:Image:Rubostipaanjajavycmichaelhogan.jpg]] shows as Image:Rubostipaanjajavycmichaelhogan.jpg --pgk 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone on this issue. KP Botany 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template?

I'm not sure I understand the question. {{Cite book}} should be sufficient, I think. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't know that one either. You might want to ask User:MPF or User:MrDarwin about the APG template. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Thanks a lot! --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyrights on thornwort

Unless I'm missing something, the case of Image:Thornwort.jpg and Image:Jgameaduttoniihr.jpeg is a lot more clear-cut than Image:Rubostipaanjajavycmichaelhogan.jpg. So I've gone ahead and listed it as a copyvio. Hope I got this procedure right, thank you for all the work you did on straightening this out, and please let me know if I screwed up :-). Kingdon 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-POV Article.

KP Botany, do you remember the Mario Frangoulis and Daniel Rodriguez articles we worked on? Well, I have another article you may be interested in working on: LAX (group). I have begun to tidy this article up, and I have removed some of the many "peacock terms" that are in the article. I don't know much about this group, but when I first heard of them the other night on my radio station; I went to the article and saw that it was a mess. At least with this group, I had some prior knowledge about them before going to the article, unlike Daniel Rodriguez. If you give me a hand that would be great, if not, that's fine. I just came to you after remembering your work on the other two articles. With this article, however, I don't think we have to worry about doing an hour or two of work on it and then come back later to find all our edits undone. Acalamari 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to work on the article, I would suggest going into the history and camparing my latest version with a previous version not done by me. Then you will be able to see the work I've done. Acalamari 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page: You did a great job! Thanks! I thinking about removing the information you removed, so I'm not going to put it back in. I will, however, remove that information about Destiny's Child that was already there. I don't see how that's relevant to the article at the moment. As for my name, it's not as though people have to actually say it: they just have to look carefully at the spelling. :) Acalamari 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston

I just got around to re-reading the article, but I just noticed it was already named an FA so I can't offer my support, but I would have given it if I could! :) Regards, --Jayzel 03:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hello KP Botany, thank you for your input. Regards --Stavenn 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little self-tooting my horn

I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Wikipedia." "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave --DavidShankBone 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling me out on the out-of-focus issue...lol...what sucks when taking these photos is when I have a shot--Bassett looking directly at me--but it comes out less than perfect! I so so want it to be perfect, I sometimes convince myself, "it's not that bad." I replaced the lead - is it better? I appreciate the honesty. Keeps a person in check. --DavidShankBone 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antartic krill

Hi KP Botany: I reverted the article, because while I was reading it for my edition of es:Euphausia superba, the english source was suddenly spoiled by an IP. Best wishes --Antur 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

PD: I'm sysop in spanish wikipedia: Antur.

Help!

{helpme} About a month ago I downloaded something that allows me to do roll overs and see links and stuff, I don't know what it is called. It has started acting up lately and picking text out of the edit box and putting it on a blue background above, selecting more text than I picked, and deleting the text, and disallowing undos on my browsers--what the heck is going on? KP Botany 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you find what you downloaded at Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools? --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added something called navpop, or navigation popups. Thanks for including the link, so I can just post my question on its discussion page. KP Botany 22:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowwood

thanks, I've added two images of the Big Tree, jimfbleak 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that. Unfortunately, the images were taken in recent holidat, so there won't be an endless stream of pictures! jimfbleak 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response.

I responded on my talk page with: :Thanks for your compliments. My user page seems to be going through a vandalism wave at the moment, as it's been hit almost daily. It wouldn't be quite so bad if it was 'clever vandalism' as opposed to insults. However, most vandals don't think that way. Acalamari 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response: You're right: "clever vandalism" is an oxymoron. Acalamari 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually KP Botany, about vandalism? My user page has now been placed under semi-protection. There were two more cases of vandalism, bringing the count up to 16 1/2. I asked Cbrown1023 to semi-protect my user page for me. Acalamari 03:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afrocarpus falcatus

Hi KP, I did some formatting (switched the pictures, and put one in a "gallery" so that it would be above the references), but there's not too much that can be done here: the photos are both tall, and there isn't much text to work around. Still, let me know if you want them improved or changed in some way: I'd be happy to do it for you. Thanks for looking over the Pinguicula moranensis page; I look forward to reading your comments. --NoahElhardt 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kp, have you had a chance to look over the Pinguicula moranensis article yet? It has been sitting in FAC for a long time now, and your review in any direction would help get it moving. Thanks! --NoahElhardt 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NavPop Uninstall

How do I uninstall NavPop? It used to be a handy tool, but now it's a nightmare and makes editing impossible. I asked on its talk page how to fix the problem, but did not get an answer, and meanwhile, simply can't do anything because of this stupid change that interferes with editing. I looked at the page for guidelines but can't quite figure out the initial step in uninstalling it. KP Botany 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bypassed your cache? John Reaves (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot that. Let's see if I have. Yes! Thanks. KP Botany 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, let me know if you need any more help. John Reaves (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your problems with popups. I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like the problem involves popups in the edit window. This can be disabled by putting this after the document.write line in monobook.js:

popupOnEditSelection = false;

Just trying to help. Gimmetrow 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've responded.

Incedentally, I restored some of the comments you had deleted from your talk page above (leaving what I believe was the intended deletion gone, but re-adding 1½ deleted comments). Hopefully this was okay.

Also, some spurious rogue vandalized your user page. This gives you a chance to feel like you might be doing something right! Have a nice day, Scientizzle 21:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng.

I've done a few things to the article. I added some things, and reworded them so they're not copied directly from other sites. Would you mind going over the two new sections I created to see if there are any mistakes I might of made? Acalamari 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a day or two, as I have a bit to do at work due to an unexpected (but rather exciting) crisis. KP Botany 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rodriguez

Yes, the ref checks out. It had actually been used as a ref in the past, but was lost during one of the numerous edit conflicts there. I have now nominated it for GA, as well as requesting a Peer Review. Jeffpw 10:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algae/(seaweeds)

I am interested in the Algae - if you wish to include them in your project I would like to know more and have your advice. But I do not yet understand Wikipedia. You will see some of what I have written. If you wish to leave me a not best do it under My Talk as I may never find this site agaig! Sorry about that. Cheers. :) Osborne 10:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I still have many more comments, but am utterly swamped with work. However, Raul promotes with my support outstanding as you're working on the details. I like this choice of plant and the article very much--in particular the correct level of article and text for the plant being discussed. Again, there is lots of information on carnivorous plants all over the web, but it's nice that folks can get the general background, description, and ecology of the plant from good articles and FAs on Wikipedia. Good work, Noah. KP Botany 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, KP; I really appreciate the feedback. I'll keep working on polishing up the article in response to your comments. Its exciting to see the surge of plant articles reaching or approaching FA status... I hope its a trend that continues. --NoahElhardt 06:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eukaryote rewrite

It didn't need too much editing, mostly the stuff I mentioned in the tree of life talk page, and I got rid of the Urkaryote hypothesis, which goes against pretty much all research done so far.

Origin and evolution

The origin of the eukaryotic cell was a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multi-cellular organisms. The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (1992) suggests they developed approximately 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago. Fossils that are clearly related to modern groups start appearing around 1200 million years ago, in the form of a red alga.

RRNA trees constructed during the 1980s and 1990s left most eukaryotes in an unresolved "crown" group (not technically a true crown), which was usually divided by the form of the mitochondrial cristae. The few groups that lack mitochondria branched separately and so the absence was believed to be primitive, but this is now considered an artifact of long branch attraction and they are known to have lost them secondarily.

Trees based on actin and other molecules have painted a different and more complete picture. Most eukaryotes are now included in several supergroups:

Opisthokonts	Animals, fungi, choanoflagellates, etc.
Amoebozoa	Most lobose amoebae and slime moulds
Rhizaria	Foraminifera, Radiolaria, and various other amoeboid protozoa
Excavates	Various flagellate protozoa
Primoplantae (or Archaeplastida)	Land plants, green algae, red algae, and glaucophytes
Chromists	Brown algae, diatoms, water molds, etc.
Alveolates	Ciliates, Apicomplexa, dinoflagellates, etc.

Several authorities recognize two larger clades, the unikonts and the bikonts, the unikonts deriving from an ancestral uniflagellar organism, and the bikonts deriving from an ancestral biflagellate. In this system, the opisthokonts and amoebozoans are considered unikonts, and the rest are considered bikonts. The chromists and alveolates may be part of a larger group that is ancestrally photosynthetic, called the chromalveolates, but this remains contentious. Some small protist groups have not be related to any of these supergroups, in particular the centrohelids. Eukaryotes are closely related to Archaea, at least in terms of nuclear DNA and genetic machinery, and are placed by some, along with the Archaea, in the clade Neomura. In other respects, such as membrane composition, they are similar to eubacteria. Three main explanations for this have been proposed:

Eukaryotes resulted from the complete fusion of two or more cells, the cytoplasm forming from a eubacterium and the nucleus from an archaeon (alternatively a virus).
Eukaryotes developed from Archaea, and acquired their eubacterial characteristics from the proto-mitochondrion.
Eukaryotes and Archaea developed separately from a modified eubacterium.

The final hypothesis is currently the most accepted. The origin of the endomembrane system and mitochondria are also disputed. The phagotrophic hypothesis states the membranes originated with the development of endocytosis and later specialized; mitochondria were acquired by ingestion, like plastids. The syntrophic hypothesis states that the proto-eukaryote relied on the proto-mitochondrion for food, and so ultimately grew to surround it; the membranes originate later, in part thanks to mitochondrial genes (the hydrogen hypothesis is one particular version).

Werothegreat 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Nice to have news from you again! It was indeed an unpleasant experience. The positive thing is that I can now focus again my attention on purely encyclopedic editing without distractions. What I learnt from this story is that I must be more careful when dealing with such disputed issues, and that sometimes despite your good intentions, your actions may have the exactly opposite result than the one you expected. Cheers!--Yannismarou 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your comments, I posted an explanation for the tag now. --Mardavich 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Editor

KP Botany thanks for your help and editorial comments on the article Eliot Bernstein, you are a breath of fresh air to those who need editorial help!!!!--Iviewit 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borders

First, I disagree with your assertion of how often human borders coincide with geographical ones. If we look at a map of e.g. Africa or North America, we see a lot of borders that run straight horizontally or vertically; those aren't geographical. If we look at a map of Europe, we see a lot of borders that have changed in the past few decades; the geographical borders obviously didn't. Second, I note that many borders coincide with rivers in particular, but I disagree with your assertion that a river serves as a border for animals and plants, as rivers can be crossed by many animals and plants (through their seeds or spores). And third, I disagree with the notion that I would be ignorant and unwilling to learn, and consider that a personal attack. >Radiant< 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an editor who admits they were wrong, but then deletes the omission, well, here it is:[2]

"Proof by assertion isn't." says Radiant. And Radiant is correct, as his/her assetion that "Indeed, animals do not mind human borders, so anything found in one country is likely also found in the next country over." is not a proof of anything, but simply a personal opinion, that of someone unfamiliar with the concept of "endemism" and/or willing to ignore it even though it was discussed in the CfD. KP Botany 04:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent my views. Indeed, don't represent my views period, I can speak for myself. Your false rhetoric is not getting you anywhere. >Radiant< 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your views represent themselves without any help from me. These are copy and pastes from you. KP Botany 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iviewit Eliot Bernstein

KP - re eliot bernstein discussion you removed newspaper articles from verified sources such as Variety, Sun Sentinel, digital webcast all independent articles written by journalistic staff and cited them as press release which was not the case for much of what you removed. Also is there are a rule for press releases you can cite, say one that states no negative press releases. Removing the sources that verify the article I am sure was not your intent. Finally all of your edits should be put back until you state if you have any conflicts with these matters. I am suprised that you did not so state no conflict before making more edits, especially where you removed the articles from reliable sources. Also if you removed the childrens names, many bios have these and in fact the reference to Joshua contains valuable information regarding dating the inventions.--Iviewit 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eliot Bernstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Iviewit. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protected User Pages.

Actually KP Botany, you shouldn't have to worry about your user page not being vandalized or semi-protected; BorgQueen's user page hasn't been vandalized; and she's an admin. Sure, her user page is fully-protected now, but before it was; I didn't see any vandalism on the page. Acalamari 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Widespread"

I don't have any specialized dictionaries. However, the meaning of "widespread" in my few botany and zoology books is, I believe, the same as that in ordinary dictionaries. (Could this be why biological dictionaries don't define it?)

Here are a couple of citations:

Cryptantha humilis is "widespread in Utah (but more common w. than e. of the Wasatch front) and Nev." Cronquist, Holmgren, Holgren, Reveal, and Holmgren, Intermountain Flora (1984), volume 4, p. 246. If it matters, that account is by the late Arthur Cronquist, who you probably know more about than I do.

The Mallard occurs in Mexico and northern Central American as an "U[ncommon] winter visitor […] in N Mexico […], S to BCN, N Sin, Dgo, and N Tamps; formerly more numerous and widespread, occurred regularly to cen Mexico […]." Howell and Webb (1995), A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America, p. 160.

I can also give you citations from Zimmerman, A Guide to the Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania (Zimmerman is fond of the word) and the American Birding Association Checklist, if you want. If you're interested in further examples of how the word is used, Google Books and Google Scholar would probably find many.

I wonder whether you're asking because of my change of "cosmopolitan" to "widespread" in an unsigned statement (whose history I didn't check) of a "con" of country categories for organisms, namely that for some species the list of categories becomes too big. I did this because in my view the disadvantage isn't restricted to the few really cosmopolitan species. A species like the Mallard (widespread in the Northern Hemisphere), which occurs in, I imagine, at least 50 countries, or even the Turkey Vulture (widespread in the Americas), occurring in 25 or 30 countries, would have a category list that I consider too big.

Someone might point out that all the examples above use "widespread in". However, I hoped it was clear in the context that my bare "widespread" meant "widespread in the world". Sorry if it wasn't. —JerryFriedman 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XXL (band).

I hope that page merge you proposed is successful. That will give us more room to work with if the two pages are one. I've done a couple of small edits, but not much. If the merge goes through, it will makes things a lot easier.

I have, however, fixed some references and done some rewording on Silas Kopf. Also, I just took at look at the article about Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng; that article is looking great now. I'm going to do a couple of corrections to that article in a moment. Acalamari 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frimpong-Boateng, from what I've read, is a very interesting, as well as educated, person. I'm glad you pointed out the article about him. It's got quite a lot of information in it already. As for XXL (band), I'll see what happens with the AfD and the merge. If it survives, and the merge is successful...excellent. If not...at least I would have got to do a couple of edits to the article. :) Acalamari 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical description vs Description

(I moved this from discussion page)

I believe the adjective, which relates to the noun, here adds nothing to the heading. The word relates to the description of the animal. At the moment across various pages we have Physical description, Description, Characteristics, Physical Characteristics, Appearance and Identification for a section, generally below the lead, where a description of the animal, plant or fungus is given. I settled on Description (though a few bird pages have Identification) as it was the most succinct and apt descriptor of what the section actually does. Needless to say conformity is a good thing (I do it alot and someone has take the time with the other whale articles to streamline them alot)

If you remove the adjective it makes no difference to the meaning of the section. Can you show me how you feel the lack of the adjective may be ambiguous? If you can make a case for it I'll happily embark on changing loads of others :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, starts to open up a can of worms (oh yeah, and Morphology is the other heading I forgot to add to the list above)...Here is one of those things that shows that no matter how scientific scientists or authors are, they are still human, as Description has come to mean Physical description by default. However when one is asked to describe something (without a qualifier) the default option is to describe its general appearance or, hence, description. I have started looking in my books - parrots of the world has description, and most mushroom books have ...nothing..they just launch into a profile. Once I get a battery for my magnifying glass I'll look in the OED I have. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Now I've had breakfast and a coffee)...I've been musing on it. to describe means to list or report the physical characteristics of something - thus one could easily substitute General for Physical and mean the same thing. If one is talking about, say dentition, one could say Physical description of.... - i.e. there is nothing about the word physical in this sense which relates it to general appearance and nothing else. On bird pages, the tradition has been to have the heading cover appearance and vocalization and sometimes distinguishing features in flight. Most of these other headings you raise as examples, (dentition, its behavioural or migratory patterns, its biochemistry, the physics of its blubber) would be under their own headings or subheadings under behaviour. In the dino articles Description and Paleobiology got separated somewhere along the line...

Now, is it worth taking this to tree of life (I was trying to think of the most appropriate forum)? Agree about tedium but there's the thought that an ounce of pain.....22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I figured Tree of Life and I can then place a note about the discussion elsewhere on fungi, birds, dinos etc...Then it can be sort of official once consensus is reached, much like taxobox...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it - now how to phrase it. I am not sure anyone will comment. You're the second person to revert my tweaking of a Description heading from one of the other many variants in several months (and I've changed alot across mammals, reptiles, birds etc.). I am trying to alert them to helping Humpback Whale though FAR but 'tis quite thus far...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Description', I had changed the other rorqual pages; Sperm whale still says 'Morphology' :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Country

First of all, thank you for your insights and intelligent direction on this article. I strongly agree with you that the wine officianados dont seem to have a clue about the distinctions between wine and the culture of the regions in which grapes are grown and wine is produced. I shall try to watch some of the other California regions. Regarding Limegreen's proposal, I shall try to keep an open mind, but i still think the onus is upon someone to produce a credible article on another world region, with sources, that calls for the question of renaming. My real reservation here is that the Northern California Wine Country is clearly {by sources and by anecdotal observation) recognizable all over the world without any other descriptor than "Wine Country". Does any other region really have that claim in the USA? I think the jury is out until we see a rival article. Anlace 15:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are Welcome - Dave1g's edit to Chlorella

You're welcome I do what I can... But may I ask why you sent me the "welcome to wikipedia" message? Did I do something wrong? I have been here since May 2005. Ha Ha --Dave1g 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percent Standard

I found this Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Percentages

Looks like it is domain specific. % for science, percent for humanities. Consistency is the important thing. Personally I think % should be the rule and percent the exception. Now that I think about it I used to be taught a rule in English class that numbers below 10 or even 100 should be spelled out in proper English writing. And if that rule is followed I would expect "percent" to be used. I don't believe many people follow that rule though. So Maybe we should suggest a guideline on % for numerals and percent for words?

Jeez now you got me thinking. Pulling out my MLA handbook from high school English class and I am now covered in dust.

Section 2.5 is on numbers and 2.5.4 is on percentages (paraphrased below)

Use % with numerals. In discussion that infrequently use numbers (non scientific publications), spell out the number and use percent. Do not combine spelled forms of numbers with symbols.

It would be nice if Wikipedia's style guidelines were more structured and comprehensive like the MLA reference manual. --Dave1g 05:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, Texas

Hello, please come to Talk:Houston, Texas. An editor claims that the mention of Rice University and University of Houston in the lead is advertising. He also feels that the schools should not be mentioned in the lead because other city articles don't do this and the Houston article should be consistent with other city articles. Hope you can stop by and thanks again. Postoak 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding your recent post Talk:Houston, Texas, I did not intend to cause disruption. There's no need to assume bad faith.--Loodog 00:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not interested in standardizing Houston to Boston; I'm interested in making Houston consistent with New York, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, etc... (though San Diego has been noted does include a school).

I grant that Philadelphia will have a note about the Revolutionary War, where Houston will have a note about NASA, since these are things distinct to one city or the other. But I see schools as omnipresent. And if cities home to the most prominent schools in the country don't mention schools in the intro, it would be inconsistent to start including them in others.

In general, I would favor no mention of schools in the lead except in cases like Hanover or Cambridge where you've got a city so small and unremarkable, that people wouldn't know it except for the school.--Loodog 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Please feel free to contribute.--Loodog 23:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You win. Have a nice day.--Loodog 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel

Actually, Jeff didn't ask me; I looked at his User page and did it for him. I thought it would brighten him up some as he went through a difficult time. It's a shame I chose a dark church on a rainy day; so few photos came out. --David Shankbone 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, David Shankbone, award KP Botany this barnstar for being an example of what a Wikipedian should be, for taking time to leave spontaneous encouraging messages and for improving Wikipedia not only through your edits, but through your demeanor. Thank you. David Shankbone 03:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I can get Le Gyllenhal - I can confirm to you now that the Tribeca Film Festival has agreed to give me a press pass, based solely upon my Wikipedia credentials. I'll keep my eyes peeled!--David Shankbone 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs

Go ahead! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Country (California)

You should probably pass or fail Wine Country (California) as its on hold has expired. IvoShandor 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Revert.

Just noticed that message you left on Talk: LAX (group) Done. :) Acalamari 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Opening night at Tribeca with my new camera has produced my best photos yet: Added my photos of Martin Scorsese, Jimmy Fallon, Christie Brinkley, Eric Bogosian, Kerry Washington, Julia Stiles and Diego Luna. Still have more, including *SWOON* Freddy Rodriguez. Sadly, no Jake. --David Shankbone 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

Its time to archive your talk page. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Nomination of Hans von Boetticher

Clearly, you did not read any of my earlier posts. The page had been tagged for cleanup (Notability and Sources) for over six months. At the time I nominated it, there had not been any edits to the article in over five months. Notability was not asserted in the article [3] and there were not any sources. I do not appreciate the condescending tone in the AFD. The fact that sources were added and the article was improved was obviously a direct result of the AFD. No one became involved in the article until they realized it was up for nomination. You can say that that there were other ways to improve the article, but obviously they did not work. --Cyrus Andiron 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This is a reference

[1]