Jump to content

User talk:Nmcke1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Welcome!

Hello, Nmcke, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm having trouble figuring out how to create an account. Apparently I already have a username and a talk page but I am not able to log in because I don't remember my password and don't have an email associated with my username, so how can I can I create an account from this username/ change my password? Thanks 132.156.202.52 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can't. You can always create a new account. You could change your password only if you would an email associated with your username. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgars2007: Ok, but would I somehow be able to merge the information from my account Nmcke into my new account? As in my talk/ user page? 132.156.202.52 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@132.156.202.52: If you meant just the information, then yes - you can just copy it. If you meant all the contributions, then I think not (You can write down in your new account userpage such info: Before YYYY-MM-DD I was editing under [such and such] username). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Nmcke1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LukeSurl t c 13:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Nmcke1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Nmcke1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Conifer evolution (May 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
FireflySixtySeven (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft articles

[edit]

Your draft articles have two major problems - one structural and one stylistic. Consequently they are unlikely to pass articles for creation. However you have clearly done a lot of work in creating them, and it would be a shame to lose this.

The structural problem is that the content is material appropriate for several existing articles, and in some case is already present in WikiPedia. This is particularly noticeable for the Picea glauca taxonomy draft, which straddles the scope of the Pinopsida, Pinaceae, Picea and Picea glauca articles.

The stylistic problem is that it reads like an essay rather than an encylopaedia article. (I can't immediately pin down why this is so, but as two of your drafts have been rejected for this reason, by different persons, it would seem to be a common perception. It might be related to the structural issues.)

One of the rejections appears to have been spurious. A rogue editor rejected 100 articles for creation in 68 minutes. Lavateraguy (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(There are smaller problems, such as the taxonomy article containing redundantly two paragraphs on albertina.)

Much of your material would be appropriately placed in Picea glauca, and if that article became unwieldably large split of into a subarticle (but with summaries left in the main article).

If you come over to WikiProject Plants I think that some of the participants would be willing to help you in incorporating what you have written into existing articles.

You might also like to consider whether you would prefer to publish it elsewhere. I think that with some editing it would be good enough for publishing in a journal, if you could find a journal covering the right level and subject.

Lavateraguy (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavateraguy: We appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions and would like to follow them but will probably need some more guidance. Our original intention was to take a manuscript written by a late colleague, break it into manageable chunks and put it on Wikipedia with links to and from existing information about white spruce. I am quite certain that the information we have would be an asset to the site. Unfortunately we (my supervisor) were (was) naïve about the process. Aside from pieces you may have seen we have information on botany – crown form, phenology, seeds, seedling development, root system form, stem, vegetative reproduction, grafting, tree improvement; physiology – dormancy, light, temperature, photosynthesis, water, nutrition, phytohormones; constraints on establishment – environmental stress, fire, soil, mammals, birds, insects, fungi, competition; silviculture – management practices, natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, direct seeding, planting, site selection and preparation, tending, release, growth and yield and harvesting. Most of the information is about white spruce in Canada. Can you tell me (us) if there is a straightforward way to proceed? Thanks! Nmcke (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your help request. If you are trying to message Lavateraguy directly, and it appears that you are, you can either click the "talk" link next to the user's name and post at the bottom of their talk page, or you can respond to the user by using the {{ping}} template, like this: {{ping|Lavateraguy}} which I've done on your behalf. You can also use {{yo|Lavateraguy}} if that's easier to remember. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) The first issue to address is a legal one. Who holds the copyright in the manuscript? Wikipedia would want a statement that the material is released into the public domain or licensed under Creative Commons or an equivalent license, either from an authorised representative of the estate or the employer, depending on who holds the copyright.
2) That addressed, the normal WikiPedia process would be that material is added to the Picea glauca article, and sections subsequently split off (with summaries left behind) when that article becomes unwieldly. It is not unreasonable for you to attempt to short circuit this sequence of events, but you should be modifying the main article in step with the creation of the subsidiary articles. (Possibly you could include this material in the AfC pages with a note indicating where it is intended to go.)
3) One of the conflicts in WikiPedia is between deletionists, who hold the position that WikiPedia context should be restricted to (their concept of) what is appropriate to an encyclopedia, and inclusionists, who hold the position that WikiPedia is not restricted by the physical limitations of paper (or CD/DVD) encylopaedias and the more information the merrier. (I am a moderate inclusionist.) There is a possibility that some people will take that position that incorporating the equivalent of a review paper verging on monograph into WikiPedia is inappropriate. If you read WP:NOT you will get an idea of the philosophy behind the site.
4) There may be a better home for the manuscript than WikiPedia. Within the WikiMedia empire there is WikiSource and WikiBooks. Google Knol might have fit (unless it had size limits), but that's now closed. However it points us at Annotum. Or you could self-publish through Lulu or the Amazon equivalent or another POD publisher. I also wonder why the manuscript is not being shepherded through to its original intended place of publication.
It may be worth discussing this outside WikiPedia. You can work out how to contact me from my user page. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lavateraguy:, my supervisor and I were not able to figure out how to contact you from your user page however:
1) the copyright holder of this manuscript is the (Canadian) Crown – it was written while the author was employed by the Canadian government. We can provide a statement about public domain if necessary. It is an unpublished manuscript, so not appropriate for library collections. The manuscript is not going through the publication process it was intended for because our management thought that it would cost too much (both time and money) to complete the process. Our hope was to put the content up in as intact a fashion as possible to allow other white spruce aficionados to make changes, add to, edit, etc., the content.
2) If I understand what you are saying in the second point, we should edit the existing Picea glauca article, creating new sections when necessary. The new sections should be created in the Articles for consideration section; the edits to the existing page do not go through the same process.

Thanks Nmcke (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavateraguy: Have you had a chance to read the above message I left for you yet? Thanks Nmcke (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:White spruce (Picea glauca) Taxonomy has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:White spruce (Picea glauca) Taxonomy. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: White spruce (Picea glauca) Taxonomy (June 12)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Nmcke1, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Your submission at Articles for creation: Climate and White spruce (June 12)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
LukeSurl t c 14:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC White spruce (Picea glauca) Phylogeny and Biosystematics was accepted

[edit]
White spruce (Picea glauca) Phylogeny and Biosystematics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

JordanKyser22 Talk / Edits / Boxes / Subpages 00:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:White spruce (Picea glauca) Plant geography (June 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
the panda ₯’ 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Tree line, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 11 December

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Allegheny mound ant
added a link pointing to White pine
Picea glauca
added a link pointing to Boreal
Spruce
added a link pointing to Morphology

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, I'm a bit bemused by the apparently scanty citation style you are using at a rapid pace on many articles. The quite long paragraph in Tree has one ref about 1/3 of the way down, and it is just about acceptable in its format (why not use a cite template, and spell out journal names in full?). It is not clear whether the rest of the paragraph is uncited or whether the one and only ref applies to it - please put the ref at the end if this is the case; and please add sufficient refs if it isn't. Verifiability is about making it clear where every claim came from. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry to be going on about this, but to my eyes Pinophyta has the same issue. Could you possibly give me an idea of why you are approaching articles this way? I am minded to revert the changes if there isn't some kind of discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiswick Chap:, sorry for the misunderstanding. I’m a student working for the Canadian Forest Service, and the content I have been instructed to upload was written by a now deceased research scientist. We wanted to get the material out into the world and we plan to rework the material so that it fits better once we have made additions. Thanks Nmcke1 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, glad to meet you. In this situation, I'd suggest that the best approach would be to start a discussion on the Talk page(s) of the article(s) you think might be the best homes for the material. It isn't really ideal to add partly-cited materials to articles, even if you intend to improve them later. The other thing that will need very careful attention is copyright: generally, things written by a person remain their copyright for 70 to 100 years after their death. An exception is when things belong to a government agency, so NASA documents are public domain; perhap Canadian Forest Service docs are also. If not, you will have to find out who now owns the copyright (the deceased's estate, could be a group of people) and get them to write a ticket (and publish it, whether via Wikimedia or elsewhere) to declare it public domain. Otherwise the material is a Copyright Violation and could get you into a lot of trouble. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Chiswick Chap:, thanks for the advice. All of this information is under a Crown held copyright, so we definitely have permission to be submitting this information and the management here definitely knows what I am doing with it. So copyright is not an issue and this is by no means a rogue project. I will certainly work on trying to only include paragraphs with more references though. Thanks! Nmcke1 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Please keep on discussing edits, so we (including other editors) can all work together to make the articles as good as possible. The goal must not be to 'use' existing materials, but to make articles better: the two goals can easily conflict, and you must be aware of the possible conflict of interest in your own mind, always erring on the side of the article if in doubt. For instance, you must never risk overbalancing an article with too much material on a subtopic just because you'd like to find it a home. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap:, Do you mean you want me to ask someone every single time I want to add a sentence/ paragraph to an article? And not just do it myself? Nmcke1 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. Just, when you're about to add a whole new section, specially if it's going into more detail or is more technical than the rest of an article, do discuss it. Once that's agreed, edits can and should go ahead naturally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Chiswick Chap:, thank you for your help. Hopefully I haven't caused too much grief! Nmcke1 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Chrysomyxa nagodhii) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Chrysomyxa nagodhii, Nmcke1!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please strive to write articles that clearly define the subject, and that minimize jargon. Wikipedia is not a technical journal, and overly scientific language hinders comprehension. See WP:MTAU and WP:BETTER for more tips.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Buprestidae
added a link pointing to Hemlock
Mast (botany)
added a link pointing to Regeneration
Pinophyta
added a link pointing to Hemlock
Silviculture
added a link pointing to Regeneration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nmcke1&oldid=1143199318"