User talk:Rkitko/Archive7

Guanacaste

Can you give me a brief summary how to merge Talk, so I can do it on my own in the future? (Or do you need Admin rights?) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

olive oliva di mare

Would you care to fix something up, then DYK it? I plundered una piccola stella dorata and thought you may like to have a go.

• Did you know that Posidonia oceanica, a seagrass of the Mediterranean, has fruit that is known as the olive of the sea?

... or maybe something about the egagropili. cygnis insignis 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This page should not exist. It is a monotypic genus, so the content should be merged with the existing page on the genus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh #$%, it isn't monotypic anymore. I'll sort it out :( --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! One of you had better make this hit the front page, or I'll be really cross. :P cygnis insignis 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

'Petey is more involved with DYK than I. I'm sure it will get mentioned. :-) --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Anyway, something on a more serious note, and on the subject of history merges. I think the page histories, and perhaps some of my edits, are missing from articles EncycloPetey de-monotypified unmerging. Can you have a look at that? Cheers, cygnis insignis 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When pages are split (unmerged) the edit histories cannot be fully unmerged, unfortunately. (At least not by any method I know of.) Merging edit histories is itself a tricky and annoying process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is possible but very tedious. It would require the deletion, selective restoration of certain edits, and a move or two. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a change and added a ref, the corrected spelling helped with that. The original source, it:Posidonia oceanica, suffers a little form regional bias - perhaps the term is so familiar that it went unreferenced. If it is not well known, we should let them know a feature article is wrong. I will have a look at the entry, ta for putting it up. The other hook is the egagropili. Other than that, I hope you will understand that I never want to see the bloody thing again. Very few of my contributions are deleted, and restoring this article was a bit of a bother. Best regards, cygnis insignis 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. If it is illustrated, the egagropili is shown in a good photo. cygnis insignis 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Argusia argentea -> Tournefortia argentea

Can you merge the histories? Thanks in advance! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure to be of help re:taxonomy! It is actually incidential - I am adding many ecology papers as refs these days, and especially in the old ones you'll find obsolete scientific names. Now, my main interest is phylogeny and evolution, and getting the taxa right will often allow one to see a phylogenetic pattern that is otherwise hidden. Flowers visited by hummingbirds, plants eaten by caterpillars etc. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Posidonia oceanica, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tournefortia argentea

G'day mate,

I noticed that you moved Argusia argentea to Tournefortia argentea. FloraBase still lists it under Argusia, but GRIN lists it under Tournefortia, so I had a bit of a dig around to find out who was right, and it seems the answer is "Neither". Apparently in 2003 this species was transferred into Heliotropium as Heliotropium foertherianum.[1][2] Can you think of any reason why this shouldn't be moved yet again?

Hesperian 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, it's only two sections up and I didn't notice it. Okay, move done. Will let D. know. Hesperian 12:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking, Judge Floro

Hi, are you still an administrator? I just want to COMPLAIN and NOTIFY you about a threat to block my user (I am not familiar how to deal with this guy and vandalism). I was emailed by some editors per private message that many Filipino editors were out to muscle me and to ban me, due to my prophecies, inter alia. I told them that WikiPedia is merely one of 140 forums and places I registered and joined (I was banned in 20 wiccans and atheist forums), and I don't care if guys are stupid and unruly. I debunked FEAR in my life. I have high respects to you, since I knew you were so impartial, and when you deleted or re-directed my oil articles, I never complained since, I found that you are on biology etc. not related to these. But this User:Maxschmelling. User talk:Maxschmelling had been pestering me[3] on Philippine news editing. He had gone wild, and he even deleted my modern wrist watch record auction from Reuters news. I ignored him since he must have had a family mess or job crisis, inter alia. I discern and let these go. Is this guy an administrator? He claimed that he is not a Filipino and not related to Filipino but has lots of fear to show his nationality. I had used WikiPedia Psalm 109 and 73 since when I read Wiki rules, I could not defend myself against vendetta or cover-up and hidden agenda by editors and administrators who were out to muscle me, for reasons, as personal defense based on Bible and spirituality, since the world is full of rage. Please enlighten me on the power of this guy to block and to threaten to block when all my edits are not news. And what is my remedy against him? Can you block him? Thanks. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

B3 domain

Hi there. I just wanted to drop by and let you know the reason Category:Plants was not appropriate on the article B3 domain, which you reinstated in this edit. Even if the B3 Domain is only found in plants, it shouldn't be categorized in Category:Plants because it, itself, is not a plant or major plant topic. It shouldn't even be categorized in a similar category, Category:Botany because these high-level categories are mostly for organizing the structure of subcategories and the most important topics, such as the other items in Category:Plants. When I was new to Wikipedia, I too was confused about the purpose of categories and how articles fit in them. My advice would be to peruse a particular category and see if the article that you're editing would be suitable based on the other categories or the description of what the category is supposed to contain. If we threw every binding domain and plant protein into Category:Plants, it would become overpopulated very quickly! I hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try discussing your reason for removing the category on the talk page instead of wholesale reverting, after I offered a reason? Discussion can lead to understanding and agreement, thereby improving an article, rather than needlessly reverting and editing. Thanks. I put this note here in case you don't notice it is also on the article's talk page where the discussion should be had. I'm new at this, and it seems articles are highly owned and operated by a few editors, making constructive editing difficult. Nonetheless, discussing the edit is the way to go. --Blechnic (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems our messages crossed paths here. Yes, sorry about that. I didn't see the discussion on the talk page. But as you can see from my explanation above, categorization is a simple process and this article really does not belong in Category:Plants. No discussion is necessary on that point. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not every binding domain, it's one plant binding domain, and it is currently extremely important to plants because of major funding for researching B3 domains and B3-like domains in plants. It's one of the hottest current talks in plant cellular biology to come up in ages. Are you saying that plants doesn't include any subcellular plant topics? --Blechnic (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't belong in that category. I'm not very familiar with the plant molecular biology articles on Wikipedia, but a better place for this and other articles like it would be some sort of category for plant molecular biology. Consider creating one and making it a subcategory of Category:Plants. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sure, but then you'd come back and revert all my edits without discussion and declare that the category plants cannot have a subcategory of plant molecular biology. If it can be in a subcategory of the category, it belongs in that category until a subcategory is created. However, I'm certain you will do whatever you want with whatever articles and categories you want, which seems to be the Wikipedia trend. In particular, not discussing issues on article talk pages where possibly disinterested editors could weigh in with information. I give you your article. I'll be glad to send you the PDFs of the dozen or so articles I obtained to edit the article with if you don't have access to plant cell and genetics journals. Let me know, as I hate to see an important subject down in stub/start land when it could be made better by someone willing and able to edit it. --Blechnic (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please respond in a civil manner. Your tone is not appreciated, nor are your insinuations. I have no illusions that this is my article. I have no desire to own this article. I was simply cleaning up Category:Plants as I occasionally do, making sure all articles belong. Please continue your constructive edits, but ditch the attitude. Regardless, the articles still does not belong. I think a category for plant molecular biology would be very useful and no, I would not "declare that the category plants cannot have a subcategory of plant molecular biology." Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My tone? You're the one who won't discuss your edits in the edit summary after I questioned it or on the talk page, but just revert mine, after I explained why I thought it was there in the first place. Please, if you want a civil conversation focus on that by conducting one, rather than changing the focus to the other person's behavior, after you have decided not to conduct an appropriate conversation. --Blechnic (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. This is, for the most part, a civil discussion regarding the category placement. I have thoroughly explained why the article does not belong. If you have forgotten, you were the one that initially reverted without discussion of my good faith edit. After removing the category again per my explanation above, not seeing your notice on the talk page, you again reverted not only the category, but a misplaced heading for a template. As per your request, let's get back to the category. Do you see any other "hottest current talks in plant cellular biology" articles in Category:Plants? Categorization guidelines suggest using the most specific category. In this case, I think creating one and populating it with similar articles would be instructive and useful. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted without discussion? Then you include a link to the diff which includes this comment of mine: "It's exclusive to plants, if this has changed with research, add info to article." This is not a reversion without discussion--it's an invitation to discuss the change, or edit the article to reflect what is going on. It is also an attempt to understand what is going on, something that seems to raise hackles on Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, you've had a friend join and edit, so it's a two against one now, and it's clear that I have no say in the matter. I'd hate to have more people reverting a category on an article that I'm no longer the least interested in editing. My offer for recent journal articles still stands though, if either you or your friend would like to write the article. --Blechnic (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. Reverting with a comment in the edit summary is indeed reverting without discussion. If you would have liked to invite me to discuss my edit, you could have edited my talk page much earlier. EncycloPetey probably saw the activity on my talk page and investigated. I have not discussed this page with him in any manner. Instead of giving up on constructive edits as you seem to have done when challenged on a simple matter, why not remain civil, take advice from seasoned editors, and continue your excellent constructive contributions? I also wanted to mention that simply removing a discussion thread on your talk page as you did here without archiving isn't usually appreciated. If you need help archiving, see WP:ARCHIVE. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Blechnic then cut off any discussion in this edit.

Discussion on B3 domains

Hi, after spying :) on Wikiexperts discussing B3 domain some questions make busy my both neurons:

Fact: "It (Auxin) also induces sugar and mineral accumulation at the site of application." (Arabidopsis_thaliana B3 mutants which store more oil and carbohydrates in their seeds could be Pubmed cited as well on demand)

• Q1: According to the current "food crisis" should be B3 topic put on the highest priority in the wikiplant project?
• Q2: Is there any alternative way to draw attention of Wikiexperts from plants field to B3 topic, rather than priority mark?

Any notes and/or wikilessons are highly welcomed.

Cheers, --Redeemer079 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome message

I hope I can do something to bring the Neotropical Araceae together. They are my hobby. BTW, what is Polbot and how does it generate pages?--Wloveral (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I just ask about the bot because we have hundreds of South American butterfly pages to fill, and I have the taxonomic, zoogeographic, host-plant, and developmental information in Excel spreadsheets or Access databases. With the merge function in Word, I should be able to produce the bare-bones wikipages(complete with taxobox), but uploading images will take an eternity. This is a case for patience, not a bot. Many thanks.--Wloveral (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Granitethighs/Common name capitalisation ANOTHER VIEW

Hi Ryan

In the sentence "In my garden I have a red flowering gum" do you mean ...

"In my garden I have a Red flowering gum"

"In my garden I have a red flowering Gum"

"In my garden I have a red Flowering Gum"

or "In my garden I have a Red Flowering Gum"

The use of capitals resolves exactly what the common name is; and it stands out in the text as a name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Granitethighs (talk • contribs)

Hi Again Ryan

First of all thanks for making me welcome.

It is really interesting finding my way around Wikipedia and seeing what all the groups are up to. Perhaps over time I can make myself more useful (in a year or two).

A couple of questions - how do I add a picture of myself to my talk page? And, if in an article there are two mentions of the same reference does the same reference have to be put in twice (if you see what I mean).

Oh, and are you an Administrator? You were on to me quickly, do you monitor the pages in some way?

... and ... Stylidium is in my part of the globe. Are you an Aussie or have you been here (or New Zealand)? Short of sending you plants I might be able to help out with info on the ?135 species.

["As a matter of policy on Wikipedia, capitalization of common names is usually discouraged, in line with many other manuals of style (such as Chicago)".]

So be it: although for the reasons I gave you I prefer caps.

On the common names - I might be able to add some bits to the Wikipedia entries.

[As for cultivar group, the capitalization of "group" in every instance was certainly unnecessary. I fail to see how the word "Group" in that article differed from the usage of "group" in meaning or how they could be confused. --Rkitko (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Granitethighs"]

On the "group" thing. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (latest edition 2004) recognises only two classification categories for "cultivated plants" - the cultivar and the Group. I'm sorry but capitalisation is the way Group is written -presumably to distinguish this specific kind of (classification category) group from any other kind of group. I agree it is not very satisfactory but in cultivated plant taxonomy there is a world of difference between a Group and a group. You can read all about this in the ICNCP if you are interested, starting at page xi, then try Article 18.1 before it is spelled out in detail in Article 20.

You've been very kind so I'll stop hassling you and do something more useful.

--Granitethighs (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bizzaria

You removed the category Botany for this article, with the argument that it is too broad, and citrus is enough. This is not true since bizzaria is a historical case in understanding of botany and hybridization, as you can see Charles Darwin and all the genetists were busy with the Bizzaria. In fact, the category Botany is even more important than the category Citrus, and please recorrect yourself. Shoteh (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hi Rkitko, and thank you very much for the warm welcome! I have already started an arcticle, but it is not making much progress, could you please help me out? The arcticle is Pecopteris. I was wondering this as well: How do you start a WikiProject without "suggesting" it?

Thanks a lot!--Pecopteris (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the Welcome and a question

This is the first project I've joined to say "Welcome" how refreshing!

A little background on this question first- I wrote a short article on Loch Lomond Vernal Pool Ecological Reserve and asked CNPS permission to use their photo of the Loch Lomond Button Celery (and made the dire mistake of uploading it before I had a response-won't do THAT again :)got seriously yelled at by your ole friend Blecknic-and rightly so).

OK, now (as of last night email download) I have a response from CNPS with a 2.5 mg photo attached of this lil cutey

BUT, he, Mr Jensen says I can use it, and to attribute to Rick York and state the copyright: CNPS.

My question: should I try to explain to Mr. Jensen the licensing details/requirements of Wikipedia? (I was assuming that the California Native Plant Society CNPS was already familiar with Wikipedia.)

P.S. I had not used Wikipedia's permission template/sample letter as I didn't know they existed then.

Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Granite

Thanks for your reply. Just to let you know that I have homed in on a single user name. Granitethighs (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pecopteris

Hi Rkitko,

Thank you so much for editing my arcticle, Pecopteris. There were a lot of things that were wrong with the arcticle and you did a very good job fixing them.

Is there a way that we could still include a picture? I think that would be a nice addition to the page.

Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Barbarians? If so, please just go and add your username to the list at the project page. Thanks a lot!--Pecopteris (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fossils are just a hobby for me, but they do take up a lot of my time studying, so I might be able to assist in some arcticles.

Thanks a lot for the hint on Flikr! I just have one request, though: Could you upload the picture? My computer seems to take great pleasure in crashing everytime I try to upload a picture! :).

Thanks a lot for all of your help, and just leave me a message if there is any plant arcticle that you would like help on!--Pecopteris (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help ID the plant

Hi,Rkitko. Could you, please help me to ID the plant . Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you already have the genus correct. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to identify the species without a photo of the whole plant habit. There are plenty of species of Drosera that can look like that, however my first thought was possibly Drosera binata. Do you have any photos of the whole plant? Where was the photo taken? I'm assuming it was a cultivated species. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's it. My plant is Drosera binata. Do you know, where I could find any Drosera in a wild in California? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. It depends on where you are in California, but there's a sizable bog in Mendocino County that's been used as a "dumping ground" for years. It has around 20 species of carnivorous plants, most introduced, including Drosera capensis. For the life of me, I can't figure out where it is. There also appears to be populations of Drosera anglica closer to the northeastern bit of the state. Hope that helps! --Rkitko (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1"

• Thank you very much, Rkitko.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hits

Hi Ryan - is ther any running tally of hits on articles, portals, categories etc. If so, can it be accessed? --Granitethighs (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope of WP:PLANTS

So you know, my reasoning was that Pepperoncini does not appear to refer to a specific cultivar, it seems to be a US-English term for a range of sweet peppers, prepared by pickling. Since it's more about the processing than a specific botanical entity, it seemed one for the Food project rather than Plants, just like tinned tomatoes or whatever. On the botanic gardens front, I must have been misled by the bit on WP:PLANTS where it says "This project's scope also includes botanists and botany-related articles". If a botanic garden isn't a botany-related subject, what is? Sure it could also go under the horticulture project, but it's quite normal for articles to belong to two projects equally, botanic gardens are as much about botany as horticulture. To take an extreme example, are you seriously suggesting that Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is not a "botany-related article" and should be removed from WP:PLANTS? FlagSteward (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New Stylidium taxa

I guess you're probably aware of these, but just in case you're not: [4][5][6] Hesperian 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Stylidium images

You may be interested in the discussion here in terms of a source of Stylidium images. --Melburnian (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Other extinct plants

Hi Rkitko,

Wow, we have that Pecopteris looking pretty nice now! :). Thanks a lot for your help. I also started to research Psaronius, and was hoping maybe you could help me out a little.

Are there any other extinct plants that I could work on?--Pecopteris (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mendocino/Albion bog

I thought you might be interested in this thread on the International Carnivorous Plant Society's web forum: link. It discusses the bog I was telling you about and how recently The Nature Conservancy and the ICPS just began removing the invasive and introduced species. If you're looking for more Drosera in the wild in CA to photograph, you could always post a new thread on the ICPS forum. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very, very much.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ohio Newsletter

Issue II - May 2008

From the editor: Here's Issue II of the project newsletter. We're trying to decide if this is sinking or floating. If you would like to contribute to next month's newsletter please jump right in at the News Desk! Have a great May. The Ohio Portal The maintainers of the Ohio Portal are looking to get it to featured status. They would like to ask all project members to help improve it any way they can. What needs to be done most is the supplying of selected articles and images. Selected Article: Indian Head Rock There is a eight ton rock in Ohio that was removed from the Ohio River. This rock is known as the Indian Head Rock Dating back to the early 1800’s, this rock was seen sticking out of the Ohio River and used as a navigational mark for barges along the river. The names of citizens from the town of Portsmouth, Ohio are carved into the rock from the late nineteenth a early twentieth centuries. Some of the names were of well known families from Ohio. They would swim out to the rock, have their picture taken with it or simply carve their names into it. With the advent of the Locks and Dams along the Ohio River, the rock eventually was submerged, but the legend lived on. A gentleman from Ironton, Ohio located the rock after searching a very long time for it, and he and a crew of scuba divers recovered the rock and took it to the shore to be donated to Ohio for historical value. After hearing the news about the rock being removed, Kentucky introduced legislation against the removal of the rock. They also want the diver who found it to be prosecuted for removing the rock. Kentucky owns the greatest part of the land the river runs on. Even the Army Corp. of Engineers got involved as to how to move the rock without damaging it. Kentucky wants to have it returned to the river. Billy Massie Article Assessment Reedy Bot and ShepBot are currently hard at work tagging all of the Ohio articles. We may need to have an assessment drive when the bots are finished. Think of it as a late spring cleaning. Please note your opinions on the project talkpage if you would be interested in helping! Over 10,000 articles have been tagged with {{OH-Project}} Article Achievements New Featured and Good articles Ohio was listed as a Good Article nominee; the result of the nomination was Not listed. Please help get Ohio to GA status! Port Columbus International Airport was listed as a Good Article. WikiProject Ohio Barnstar of Merit If you know of a Wikipedian who has contributed a lot of effort to Ohio articles feel free to award the new Ohio Barnstar of Merit by placing the following code on their user talkpage. {{subst:The Ohio Barnstar of Merit|message}} Contributors Stepshep & Billy Massie

This newsletter is delivered by bot to all project members of WikiProject Ohio. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter in the future, please note this at the unsubscribe page. Thank you, §tepshep Delivered by ShepBot (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

techniques is not a proper noun

Neither is bonsai. [7] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Utricularia

One more section! Good work, and congrats! :) -NoahElhardt (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could say I was on break already! Finals end on the 14th, after which I head up to the mountains to work as a cook at a field station for a few weeks. Hopefully I'll find more time for improving wikipedia pages between meals then than I do between homework now. :) --NoahElhardt (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tongue of Fire

Hi Ryan,

I know very little about this particular cultivar. I simply stumbled across the article and noticed that it seemed to have two different titles, a practice that is normally discouraged. I generally support the use of titles that are as short as possible while uniquely identifying the article, as per Wikipedia:Official names. As there are no other articles called "Tongue of Fire", that seems like the most appropriate title for the article. If there was, for example, a novel called "Tongue of Fire" that was more notable than the cultivar, I would suggest renaming the cultivar article Tongue of Fire (cultivar) rather than including the scientific name before the cultivar name. It may be confusing for people unfamiliar with the subject to have both names in the title. As the policy on official names says, common names are generally preferred to official names. Good luck sorting this issue out with WP:PLANTS. I hope this helps!

Neelix (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Grape cultivars

Hello Rkitko, I saw that you followed up my comment in the edit summary for Bacchus (grape) and restored the article's tag for WikiProject Plants. It's interesting that you want all cultivars tagged as well, because most articles on grape varieties (that's what the cultivars are always called in the wine industry) are for the moment not tagged for the Plant project, as far as I know. (That was why I thought the tag would also be irrelevant for Bacchus.) I made a quick check of the grape articles we've tag as top importance. The (species) article Vitis vinifera is unsurprisingly tagged, but none of the articles for major varieties such as Chardonnay, Riesling or Pinot Noir are. So, if you really want them in the Plants project, I would suggest going through the 300+ articles in Category:Grape varieties to round up a couple of hundred additional articles. Seems like gnome or bot work... Tomas e (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Cynanchum louiseae (invasive species)

I am sorry to have left this to you for merging, but I was too afraid of ending up with two blanked pages. Thank for doing the merge.--Wloveral (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of ume

You previously participated in a move request of ume. I have revived the request so please visit Talk:Ume#Requested move if you care to contribute. — AjaxSmack 16:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up and doubt

I noticed that you cleaned up 2 articles that I created - Ensete superbum and Musa nagensium. Could you tell me/point me a link to how you rated them? Am new to plant articles, and hence the query. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably Rkitko can give a more plant oriented answer to this, but the ratings in the template have links that explain the differences in them. Personally, when I rank my articles lately, they all get ranked as stubs because that is how I tend to rank myself -- carol (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko. I also want to add my appreciation for cleaning up the articles that I started on several Eucalyptus species. Cheers. John Moss (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mayweed

I am in the process of splitting this out into Matricaria and Tripleurospermum and making Mayweed into a disambiguation page for at least Anthemis cotula and Oncosiphon suffruticosum (a search on GRIN for the common name gave these two results).

This is my biggest problem with just pasting the articles -- the article Mayweed is a really nicely written article for Matricaria and Tripleurospermum and the edit history should be retained. The redirection page for Matricaria was made in 2004 (I think -- I looked at that in the wee hours today).

If you could delete the redirection of Matricaria and move Mayweed to there, I can continue to split them and not feel badly about losing the edit history. -- carol (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mt. K climbing routes

Why don't you just nominate it for deletion? I can't really understand why it was in the main article, or what it's doing on Wikipedia in the first place, other than advertising climbing guides, but I don't know what it can't be on Wikipedia. I think it would be simpler than editing it. --Blechnic (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would, I'm just not sure that it doesn't belong. I was hoping you were a rampant deletionist and somehow this post would egg you on to the AfD. The article is incredibly boring, and the climbing information isn't even up to date or very useful as far as the how to aspects are concerned. I just created it to get it out of the Mount Kilimanjaro article. --Blechnic (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The regular article is in poor condition and needs thoroughly written. The only editors attending it are an occasional edit by someone in the natural history area, then the climbers and this collection of climbing routes which is routinely updated with spam. Yeah, it'll just have to sit as it is, in spite of there being so much wrong, as I simply can't get interested in it. Maybe the tags will catch some interested editor's attention. --Blechnic (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Elm trees

As you have gently corrected some of my wayward novice Wiki efforts in the past, I wonder if I could solicit your help in correcting the titles of 7 elm pages, which either exclusively feature the common name of the tree, or both common and scientific, in contravention of WP:Plants protocol. I've tried moving them myself but on each occasion have been directed to seek the help of an Administrator. The titles are (should be) as follows: Wych Elm (Ulmus glabra), Field Elm (Ulmus minor), Chestnut-leafed Elm (Ulmus castaneifolia), U. bergmanniana - Bergmann's Elm (Ulmus bergmanniana), U. laciniata - Manchurian Elm (Ulmus laciniata), U. macrocarpa - Large-fruited Elm (Ulmus laciniata), and finally (U. uyematsui - Arishan Elm (Ulmus uyematsui). Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cenchrus echinatus

Good work on the copyvio article and good thinking creating that temp page. Made it really easy to move everything right in after deleting the copyvio! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. While I'm thinking of it, last time I did this, make an alternative temp page it lead into my getting blocked and a month long battle. Since you're an admin can you just delete the other temp subpage, or do I have to tag it for deletion? Talk:Shrew's fiddle/Temp. Let me know. --Blechnic (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Boletus albidus

Thankyou for your help...i am new to Wiki....and a hopelessly slow learner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridiformis (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cushion plant

It's an annoying omission. I'm looking up stuff right now. Do you want to go first, and I'll just start editing what you have? Or shall I start? I'd rather plant people start plant articles, as it's easier for me. But I will start it if you don't have time. I was also trying to figure out if it had another name it might be under, but this page should have been a redirect if that were the case. --Blechnic (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, if I get time, I'll start it. I live in the US on the Left Coast. --Blechnic (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Clementine

I'd like to, but I'm not sure that any of the new material is non-coyright infringing. I haven't checked every line, but everything I checked was. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Elm Trees

Many thanks. All i's now dotted, t's crossed. Best wishes, Ptelea (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Clementine

I checked - the only thing that coukd safely be taken from later contributions is a nutritional facts box =/. Not ideal, but I have to ask you: What can I do? ÞCarol's version contains extensive quotes from her source 2, and none of the subsequent edits changed a word of the text. this is the diff from 26 december to present - there is some reshuffling, but nothing that moves the text fro copyvio to non-copyvio. Even the apparently new paragraph is, in fact, is just moving Carol's copyvio to a new location.

Seriously, do you think I like this solution? But there's maybe a half-dozen non-copyvio sentences in even the last version before my revert. We can't build an article on that basis =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

B log at eucalypt

My regional bias there - there are so many red links at the list of ukes - the coldness of perth of recent inspired memory of the deep dark autobiographical past and driving through lyell highway tas at 3 am to get back to queenie and passing the eucs in the snow :) - but hey the whole euc thing could be project unto itself - but life is so short anyway :) SatuSuro 03:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

what do we do? is it really worth it? is jazz really dead? nuke or euc? a case of acacia before euc? crazy or sensible? the euc arts are so inconsistent by sources, method and style - one the snow one of ones i checked was created by an english oriented planting eucs in the uk - and there are whole realms of anti eucalypt critics around the world - and so on - maybe its a dangerous suggestion :( SatuSuro 11:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

C scale

You get one too: http://xkcd.com/103/

one to see....

Changes to {{botanist}}

Hi Ryan,

I made some changes to {{botanist}} after seeing this edit and this one. The Categories were great, but the second parameter of {{botanist}} seemed redundant with a DEFAULTSORT.

Looking at {{stub}}, I made changes so that the second parameter is unnecessary (and now ignored).

I thought I should let you know.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 04:03 2008 June 25 (UTC)

It would have been considerate to have brought it up on the talk page, given that there was quite a bit of discussion there.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please adopt me, help me: Due process in Wiki and Request for adoption

Hi, as administrator, may I ask your kindness (since you are very familiar with my predicament vis-a-vis some Filipino editors) to mediate on this. In this user User talk:Howard the Duck page[8], there is a statement regarding my alleged blocking. Hence, may I be enlightened, which rule did I violate to warrant blocking. I presently asked for adoption, so can I ask you to adopt me, I need protection against some Filipino editors who were reported by my former adopting parent IanLopez per email to me of this conspiracy, and parent User:Diligent Terrier, retired. Also, there is no resolution yet on this User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling since my adopting parent retired. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to be adopted by any foreign (non-Filipino) adopter

Since my former adopters iaNLOPEZ1115 and User:Diligent Terrier resigned and retired from Wikipedia, respectively, and for other reasons, I want to be adopted by any non-Filipino adopter. I am proud to be Filipino, but I prefer to be adopted by a foreigner, it is my tailor taste. I want to be adopted by you.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC) {{adoptme|20080624121040}}

Blocking me

May I respectfully quote this:[9] If ever you catch him doing something that warrants a block, please tell me. ;D TheCoffee (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I caught him editing Wikipedia --Migs (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)--Florentino floro (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Email of my adoptint parent of the conspiracy

User:Ianlopez1115 my adopting parent sent me this resignation email due to this evidence of conspiracy: let me quote hereunder in full, his email to me: "Ianlopez1115 <ian_lopez_1115@yahoo.com> wrote:I am now concerned. Here are some of my instructions: Retire before they can have the muscle to ban you, so that you have the time and energy and concentration to do your . Also, I'm now resigning indefinitely as your adopter to prevent collateral damage. But I will be there to protect you in Wikipedia, until we are banned. I also give you the explicit approval to invoke Psalm 109 and Psalm 73. However, I will not be happy because one of my distant relatives will be involved in your actions (My grandfather's mother is also a Brion from San Pablo City). Although this could be painful, I HAVE LEARNED TO EXPECT AND ACCEPT TRAGEDIES that I shall soon encounter. I appreciate the security and guidance of Luis, Armand & Angel, and I am willing to accept them as a part of my family. I am also considering my indefinite leave of absence here, but I have to defent the meek, the weak, the opressed users & editors here. I am now saddened that some of our kababayans are trying to treat you like an animal. Now is the time for you to leave Wikipedia, write a note on your userpage that you are leaving Wikipedia for good, invoke Psalm 109 & 73, and "serve" justice to those who have (or had) wronged you. And I do not consider the people whom you called "geniuses", the persons who removed and/or deleted your edits in various articles, as friends. I'm also removing my crab mentality not only for your sake, but for the sake of this nation. Please consider this, since this is a way of saving ourselves. I also hope that we can meet in real life. Please DO NOT send any messages on my talkpage, send it instead via Yahoo! Messenger and/or my email address (the email address that I use to send this message) May God have mercy on this Wiki, and tis nation. Ian Lopez(Reply of Judge Floro, Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:41 PM). --Florentino floro (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)