User talk:Kaarel

Hello there, Kaarel. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. Here are some pages which may be of interest:

You can also drop me a question on my talk page. Please sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (" ~~~~ ") for your user name and a timestamp.

Happy editing, Nordby73 09:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thrips

Hey - thanks for the updates and revisions to the thrips article. I was getting ready to make a few more organized changes myself (once real life and another thesis chapter get out of my way) - but you have done some excellent work. Thanks for the Mesozoic update, too - the Grimaldi et al article really needed to be included in there somewhere. Aderksen (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to organize the article to a more readable form and add some essential information... But the article is still far from good or complete, so your contributions would be most welcome! Kaarel (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Border Cells!

Hi there! I started the border cells article. Having worked with them for a whil, all I need is cues on how to organize the article/ headings.. I 'll put the content in. Any suggestions? Buntygill 10:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to be away from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks... The main problem with the article was that it lacked a clear definition (in the beginning) as to what the border cells are. I tried to fix it by reorganising the text a little bit. Kaarel 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra

Hi, thanks for the reply to my question. Looks like you got it. :) - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

Honorable Sir. I'm contacting you as you are listed as a Wikipedian interested in Biology. This is most fortunate as we're currently experiencing a small problem concerning a wanted article: Geoemydidae. There's some confusion here. The taxonomies searched matched the results that are on the Bataguridae page. To non-biologists this is very confusing - and it's making a lot of people sad and dperessed... Is it possible you could help straighten this out so we know what data is relevant for the Geoemydidae article. Wiki be With us. Celcius 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! We'll leave the article be for now untill you get back to us with further info. If you can't find anything else regarding the matter we'll interlink the articles as synonyms if so appropriate. Thanks for you time and effort - it is greatly appreciated. Celcius 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of drugs

Wondering about your inclusion of Sulla in List of drugs, wondering whether the capital initial is approriate. (Sulla seems not to be a brand name.) Also, I am assuming the (plant) disambiguation copies usage of the protolink in some other context, some other article: otherwise it seems somewhat redundant. (I have no idea what sort of drug or plant sulla might be.) Laurel Bush 11:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, in fact, I didn't put the Sulla into the list, but fixed a link. It formerly went to the page of the Roman dictator Sulla, which was obviously wrong. Then I found out that "sulla" is also a common name of the herb Hedysarum coronarium, so I changed it. Actually it would be better to remove it from the list, as it is no drug, but a herb. Kaarel 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I see now it was in the original list and needed disambiguating, as done by yourself. (And does not need the capital initial.) Laurel Bush 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Aquatic ecology

Hi Kaarel. Just to say that, as I understand things, when you add a category to a list, the list should be alphabetical. I guess that does lead to less important categories usurping more important ones, but it afford the advantage that you no longer have to work out the most important category! Anyway, I saw you're filling up the aquatic ecology category (thanks!) and thought you might like to know. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Cheers! Kaarel 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change from cat:ecology to cat:aquatic ecology for Kellogg Biological Station. I might support adding the cat, but not the removal of cat:ecology. Guettarda 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, be it so...:) In fact I guess the Category:Ecology urgently needs splitting into some more subcategories (I recently added a relevant tag to it!), but there are not yet enough appropriate subcategories. Kaarel 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNTBB

Regarding this edit: could you explain why you made that switch? If that isn't community ecology I don't know what is (and I say that as a community ecologist). Guettarda 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I have put back the Category:ecology. At the first glance it just seemed to me that having a category and its subcategory was not reasonable. Kaarel 07:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also curious about this edit. How do you see the Mantel test as belonging in cat:Ecological experiments? Or more to the point, how do you see that category defined? The Mantel test is a tool which is widely used in analysis in ecology - but it isn't an "ecological experiment" as I would understand the term. Guettarda 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, have restored the Category:ecology. Kaarel 07:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal category vandalism

Some of the articles you are working on have been recently vandalized by inserting Pakistan animal catgories. Check when you edit. I'm fixing most of them. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it! Kaarel 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bassd on some other discussions, the addition of the categories (in some cases three overlapping categories) is probably not vandalism (but perhaps misguided), and borderline incorrect. I've removed about half of them, but left the rest for someone who is better informed since there are hundreds of articles that have been changed. --ArmadilloFromHell 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile categories

I see that you're busy categorizing the viper articles that I've been working on. I'm not really a big fan of geographic categorization for a number of reasons. First of all, the number of geographic category tags that can be added to a single article, for example Bitis arietans, can become quite large. What good is it to add 50+ country category tags to a single article? Second, even if you decided to use larger geographic areas instead, such as the "Reptiles of Africa" category that you're using, which is very broad, your collection of articles will eventually become huge (=useless).
Therefore, if you really must insist on doing this sort of thing, I would suggest you make subcategories to start with, for instance "Reptiles of Africa" / "Snakes of Africa" / "African viperids", and subsequently add a number of the viperine articles to that last category. Later on, this will undoubtedly save you any anybody else interested in this kind of endeavor from having to recategorize everything several times over. --Jwinius 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I am no fan of the biogeographic categories either (I have even once voted for not using them - but alas! the majority of votes wanted them:)(see the argument) Adding the country categories has been for the time being horribly inconsistent and unsystematic too... But as these categories now inevitably exist, they should at least be properly used, to keep the common style of all the articles. That's why I have created the bigger categories. I thought there is as yet no need to create subcategories of these, but perhaps I was wrong. I agree, they should be split some time anyway:) Kaarel 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea has never appealed to me, so I usually ignore geographic category tags. The only times I do anything about them is if they are added wrongly, in which case I delete them, or if they are inserted ahead of the two original categories, in which case I restore the previous order. I'm not going to try to stop people from adding these tags to the articles that I'm working on, but I will not actively add them to other articles either, as this would only encourage the trend.

As for the need to create geographic subcategories, this seems obvious to me. The articles to fill them all out may not currently exist, but eventually someone will create them. The question is then which subcategories to create. I would suggest using general taxonomic classification down to approximately the (sub)family level, but there is no official agreement on this. For that matter, there is no agreement on which geographic areas to categorize either. In other words, as long as it's not possible to tell where this whole project is headed, why bother? --Jwinius 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many subcategories to use depends probably just on the number of species in a category (no need for family level subcategories for an order with one or two species!) My creating of the categories Reptiles of Africa, Reptiles of Asia etc was an initial effort to subcategorize the huge Wildlife of Africa, Wildlife of Asia etc categories... Kaarel 17:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but who says those geographic categories are going to be accepted? If they're not, your present efforts will prove to be a waste of time. --Jwinius 20:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review of Enzyme kinetics

Hi Kaarel. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best - sorry for the delayed answer! Kaarel 18:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, any help is welcome. TimVickers 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Kaarel: 21% for major edits and 1% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear expert in science,

I would like someone to do an experienced copyedit on the article Clonaid. I spent the equivalent of 2 shifts (16 hours) trying to improve the article from this to this. Since you know how to make featured articles, I was thinking that you would be interested. If you have any suggestions, please post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Clonaid. The article is currently a featured article candidate. Sincerely, Kmarinas86 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user! Bacterial wilt

Hello. I am new to wikipedia and I just recently posted my first article on bacterial wilt of cucurbits (Erwinia tracheiphla). I think it could use some improvements, but I'm not sure where to start. Since I noticed that you have contributed significant amounts to other scientific articles, I thought perhaps you might have some ideas. Any feedback would be welcome. Thanks! Eeshie 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a taxobox to the article... Otherwise, it is OK as a new/stub article.Kaarel (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronicellidae

It's great to see that someone else is interested in these odd slugs! It's entirely possible, too, that you also have some more up-to-date taxonomy on the group. In any case, I left Vaginulus out of the generic listing intentionally because I was unable to find any convincing distinctions between it and Veronicella. Tim Ross·^talk 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bulimulids and orthalicids

Hi, Kaarel! I notice you've been working on the Bulimulidae and Orthalicidae. They're looking better and better. It's clear, though, that we need to come up with a reasonable list of genera for each family, preferably with no overlap. (In the past I've tended to treat orthalicids as a subfamily, but I guess the time has come to give that up except as a comment as you've done in the Orthalicidae.) Here are some possibilities for your consideration:
Orthalicids: Corona, Hemibulimus, Liguus, Orthalicus, Porphyrobaphe, Sultana, Tholus
Bulimulids: everything else (quite a few genera)
What do you think? I really have no especially good references for this. Tim Ross·^talk 17:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments! And your propositions look good:)Kaarel (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't be offended, Kaarel, if I use different illustrations in the taxoboxes for the bulimulids and the orthalicids than the Venezuelan ones you have kindly provided. Basically, I would like to use the type genera for the two families: Bulimulus and Orthalicus. I have some very nice old engravings from Binney that provide superb detail, even if they are black and white. The color ones will work well, I think, for genera articles for Endolichotis and Plekocheilus, when someone gets around to that task.
I'm still working on the list of bulimulid genera. Looks like I'm going to have to base it on Abbott (1989), as I can't seem to locate anything more comprehensive and recent, unless you have any suggestions. Tim Ross·^talk 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afrocimex constrictus

Thank you for helping out with Afrocimex constrictus. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India

Hi Kaarel, no real need for the two way linking of the Indian list and the species/genera articles which as you point out are not India specific in any way. Feel free to remove any such links. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of Oceania

Hello,

I would like to delete this category. You're probably aware that there are sometimes disputes about how to divide the world into continents, especially in the Australasia/Oceania/Pacific/Melanesia/Malesia region. Fortunately the botanists have gotten together and settled on a standard, known as the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Under this scheme,the relevant botanical continents are "Australasia" and "the Pacific". "Oceania" is not accepted as a valid continent by botanists. The WGSRPD has been widely adopted, and I am gradually working to bring our category scheme in line with it; see for example Category:Flora of Australia. I have now created Category:Flora of Australasia and Category:Flora of the Pacific, and I can see no further use for Category:Flora of Oceania. What do you say?

Hesperian 04:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reply after three weeks. Now deleted. Hesperian 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your view sought

As a member of WP Arthropods, you might have a view on this discussion. Thanks in advance. Heds (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Kaarel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 99 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Arne Maasik - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andres Koort

The article Andres Koort has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. Aside from a genealogy, only primary sources can be found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Arne Maasik

The article Arne Maasik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Arne Maasik – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 12:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to improve the article as soon as possible - there are enough sources, but I'm currently quite busy in real life. Please have some patience! I'll try to do it within the next few days. Kaarel (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Parasitism

Category:Parasitism, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ucucha 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animals of Africa redirect page

I just want to say thanks for the creation of this page that you made back in 2008. I couldn't think of the right term, and you did. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrphophile listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tyrphophile. Since you had some involvement with the Tyrphophile redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrphobiontic listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tyrphobiontic. Since you had some involvement with the Tyrphobiontic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrphobiont listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tyrphobiont. Since you had some involvement with the Tyrphobiont redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beetles by region has been nominated for discussion

Category:Beetles by region, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 18:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Teliomycotina" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Teliomycotina and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#Teliomycotina until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]