User talk:Circeus/may-jun2007

Acer barbatum

Did you know? was updated. On 10 May, 2007, a fact from the article Acer barbatum, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words. I've just expanded A. rubrum a bit more and I've nominated it for good article status. As soon as I can find a few pictures of the florida maple and expand it a bit more I'll do the same. Thanks for your edits too. It was cool to see A. barbatum up on the main page today! Djlayton4 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stolon

Thank you very much for editing and clean up of stolon. Hardyplants 07:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I being unreasonable?

I have commented here on Guinea Pig FAC - I am keen for others input, either to support if they think I'm nitpicking or to comment/help out etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Stolon

Did you know? was updated. On 11 May, 2007, a fact from the article Stolon, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Chrono Series

I have modified the topic based on requests to establish a stronger lead article. Please take a look if you get the chance, and see if this is acceptable. Judgesurreal777 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tsuga Template

I saw that you were working on the tsuga template and I must say it looks much clearer without the scientific names. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that it's missing the Himalayan Hemlock, and since I'm not very good with templates I thought it would be better just to let you know. Thanks! Djlayton4 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pisonia brunoniana

Did you know? was updated. On 13 May, 2007, a fact from the article Pisonia brunoniana, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 07:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

V. thaspus pests and diseases

Hi Circeus. There are Wikibooks chapters on Western Flower Thrips and Common Stalk Borer... best thing GFDL-wise will be for me to copy them over (I'm pretty sure I'm the sole author of each), and then I'll leave the re-wikifying (they're wikified in subpage fashion now) and taxoboxing (there are hortiboxes) to you. Should I copy them to your userspace, or to the article names?

I'll try to scribble something up for CMV over the next week or so, but I probably won'd be doing anything with the Mullein bug any time soon. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Common Raven

G'day again, while I'm waiting for a map and a couple of other things, another ensemblé effort is approaching FAC - the first WP bird collab, Common Raven. There are 3-4 well circumscribed things we're checking out but the bulk of the article is ready for a wiki-microscope going over if you can spare the time.

For the record -we're waiting for an image approval, and a reference for the raven's ability to count; I'm not sure how much detail to go into Bhutanese mythology. Lemme know what you think. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

terrific job Jean-Sébastien as always, we're in the home stretch now, thanks! cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)éé

German Source

I'd be happy to try. Just let me know what you need and I can take a look. Djlayton4 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are available at my university's library, but I have no time to pick them up today as I have one more class as well as an English lesson I have to give for two hours. Tomorrow my girlfriend and I are moving to a new apartment, so I may not have time then either, but definitely by Wednesday I'll be able to get them and have a look through. May I ask why you're studying translation when you seem to be so knowledgeable in the field of botany!? Djlayton4 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'm in a similar situation actually. I originally aimed to study German and biology, but decided not to study the latter for the same reasons (papers, lab work, etc.). I then began studying philosophy instead, but now I've decided that my interest for botany is too strong to ignore. As such I've switched back again, so that now I'm studying German as my major and biology as a minor. I think farther down the road I'd prefer to be working in the field as a botanist than at a desk doing something with German, though I also love languages. Too many interests and too little time (and patience) I suppose. Anyways, like I said I'll get those books on Wednesday and see what I can do. Djlayton4 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I went to the library today to get those books, but the book by Murbeck must be ordered from another library, so it won't be here until Friday. The other book doesn't have any serious discussion about V. thapsus as the work covers only members of the genus in the near east. Sorry it's taken a while, but when the book comes in I should be able to help Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

At any rate the Hubert-Morath reference isn't avaliable at my library. When I searched for it initially I only typed in the name of the journal, of which a few issues are avaliable here. The Hubert-Morath is avaliable in other libraries in the country and can be ordered, but when I looked at the titles all of them had 'in the Orient' or 'Turkey' in the title, so I decided not to order it in. Since I will have to pay a small fee for that one since it needs to be brought in from a different Bundesland, I think I'll wait until Friday to see how the Murbeck reference covers the topic. If it's lacking, I'll be happy to order the other one. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is taking forever. I mentioned that I was moving and as a result I have no internet in the new apartment because the German Telecom company is on strike. I've only been able to use the internet in the library, but as it's out of the way I haven't had much of a chance. To make matters worse, I ordered the wrong book (Nachträge zur Monographie der Gattung Verbascum instead of simply Monographie der Gattung Verbascum). The Nachträge (meaning addendum) only mentions V. crassifolium in passing and has a short discussion of V. litigiosum, which he mentions is from Portugal. Anyways, I've ordered the correct book, which I will be able to pick up tomorrow afternoon.

In the meantime, I've had a look in my book Flora von Deutschland which describes ssp. thapsus and crassifolium in more detail than is in the article at the moment. For example, it says ssp. crassifolium has longer petioles on the lower leaves and wider flowers than the type. The lower stamens of the type are bald to lightly pilose, while in crassifolium only the upper parts of the two lower stamens are hairless, though they are altogether less hairy than the other three. It also says it is present at 2000m in southern Arlberg and Ötztal in Austria, which are not exactly in the Mediterranean region. If you think this information is useful I can add it to the taxonomy section. Tomorrow or Thursday I will let you know what I find in Murbeck.

Okay, I've finally got the book. The descriptions are in Latin, so if you're any good with that (I assume French would make it a bit easier) I can scan those sections and email them to you. Otherwise it gives a rather long list of synonyms and a description of the subspecies crassifolium and eu-thapsus[sic] with their respective distributions (which is in German and very thorough). It also describes a hybrid V. thapsus X V. virgatum which he calls V. lemaitrei. He treats V. gigantium as a variety of V. simplex, which is now itself considered synonymous with V. thapsus. Anyways, it's a big book, so let me know what to look for or if you'd like me to send some pages over as a .pdf. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

V. thapsus

I vote ignore it. Including every little piece of obscure information that no-one could possibly care about is likely to make the article worse not better. (I need to learn that lesson myself ;-)

The absence of a taxonomy section was the only real stopper for me; I've now supported the candidature. A distribution map would be nice, though I imagine it would take an immense amount of work.

When I was digging for phylogenetic information I came across a number of highly technical papers on the species - I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not any of them have anything to offer:

• Pardo, F., F. Perich, R. Torres and F. Delle Monache (1998). "Hybrid affinity chromatography of α-galactosidase from Verbascum thapsus L.". Journal of Chemical Ecology. 24 (4): 645–653.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Bom, Isaac, Dicka van Wassenaar and Johana Boot (1998). "Phytotoxic Iridoid Glucosides from the Roots of Verbascum thapsus". Journal of Chromatography A. 808 (1–2): 133–139.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Khuroo, M. A., M. A. Qureshi, T. K. Razdan and P. Nichols (1988). "Phytotoxic Iridoid Glucosides from the Roots of Verbascum thapsus". Phytochemistry. 27 (11): 3541–3544.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Hesperian 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably have seen it by now but i've left some notes on the FAC. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 15 May, 2007, a fact from the article Dandy (computer game), which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

You asked for two stubs to be created for Stalk Borer and Mullein Moth. They're done. Which article is up for FAC? AshLin 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template editing

My adoptee is wanting to write an article to be included in the {{met_vars}} template. How would he go about editing that template to include the article? --LaraLove^T/_C 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems so obvious now. :) Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Still seems odd that there's no way of editing the template without having to edit your address bar. Alternatively I'm guessing there's a list of templates and I can get into it that way before editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potkettle (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Length

Several weeks back we spoke about Chicago Landmark and its prospects at WP:FLC. We have over the course of two tenures as the featured article converted it into a 100kb+ article that will eventually go to WP:FLC. What are the largest WP:FLs? I am not sure how to address its size. Any advice? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Before it gets to WP:FLC it will be renamed. That was the intention all along. I was hoping to get more text contributions during the collaboration by leaving it at Chicago Landmark. If I understand you correctly you are suggesting possibly List of Chicago Landmarks (A-M) and List of Chicago Landmarks (N-Z) for example. Is this correct?

Re: International Phonetic Alphabet FAC

Hi, thanks for your message on my talk page. I'm not one of the principal authors of the IPA article, but I find it a wealth of information. The attention to detail other contributors have been showing in the article is laudable, but if it can be improved further, I will be very happy. I personally view featured status as a drive for improvement; if it can be improved, I will be happy regardless of whether the article makes featured status or not.

Having said that, I am willing to participate in addressing concerns that people bring up. Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So I would be extremely grateful about your thoughts, especially if they are long winded analyses. :) Thank you very much. --Kjoonlee 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PMID in cite journal template

Thanks for your help with PMID - no pmid ;-) - in citation templates. Salut, Jasu 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 17 May, 2007, a fact from the article Tsuga dumosa, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pâté chinois

I've been forced to remove the "comments" (for lack of a better word) you added to Pâté chinois about Poirier's hypothesis. Without a citation (and I can find one for Poirier easily, since he's been my teacher in History of Quebec French), it is nothing more than Original research. Circeus 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You were not "forced" to do anything. You made a choice to do something. Please embrace your freedom of choice and acknowledge that you made a conscious decision to do something. If there is no better word than the one you choose, there is no reason to parenthetically state that there is no better word. Jerry 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Poirier's theory lacks several pieces of information which would make it more plausible. First, he does not state how the town of China Maine would have come to have this recipe. So, his theory is not actually about the origination of the recipe, but rather just how Quebec came to know of it. As well, he does not state why people went from China, Maine to Quebec.

Also, the National Cemetary Records for China, Maine, for the last 100 years, do not show one single French Canadian family name buried there prior to 1970. If the canadians really lived there, then at least one of them would have died there, don't you think? Perhaps Mr. Poirier could lend more credibility to his theory by explaining:

• How did China, Maine get the recipe?
• Why did people leave Maine to go to Quebec, when the rest of the emmigration profile shows a clear one-way movement from Canada to the United States?
• Why were none of the Canadians in China Maine buried there?

Jerry 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hi Circeus: I'm a relatively new Wiki-editor who has been doing a lot of work with WP:Birds (and even more on my various Sandbox pages!!) I noticed your comments to Sabine's Sunbird and figured I'd ask for more information, since I'm also working on some other articles I hope to get to featured article status someday... Is it generally considered best to always indicate the page number on which the information is found in any reference note? MeegsC | Talk 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that -- and for including several styles so I can see the differences! MeegsC | Talk 16:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• In my nightmares albatross, Procellariidae and seabird are in FAR and fail because of creeping referencing standards and editors demanding book page numbers for texts that I got out of libraries years ago. Some of these books I'm not even sure if they have in NZ. I can see how the system is useful for an unindexed book (like citing Gerald Durrell's Golden Bats and Pink Pigeons) but I don't think that it should be compulsory and seeing how it isn't would rather keep it that way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Circeus: Another question. If I'm referencing a book that has multiple contributors (each of whom has written a specific chapter in the book) and want to cite multiple chapters, how do I link from the citations section to the references section? Should I just use the editors' names rather than those of the authors? (BTW, it's Handbook of Birds of the World that's giving me fits!!) MeegsC | Talk 09:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chrono series Did You know?

I don't see anything that would be a good did you know from the article, could you take a look? Judgesurreal777 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial assistance

I apologize for not recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page:

This user helped promote List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry to featured list status.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:04 Revenge of Diaboromon.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:04 Revenge of Diaboromon.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomic ranks

Thanks for your comments. I oringally created it using the blue links from Linnaean taxonomy#Taxonomic ranks. However, most of them have turned out to be re-directs. I've updated the template accordingly. (The redirects have been chnage so that (for example) Parvclass redirects to Class rather than scientific classification). Tompw (talk) (review) 10:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Amanita phalloides

OK, trawling through stuff (PS:loved the etyomology link!)- can you give the ref from your french guide book which recommends avoiding the collection of Amanita species for the table as I can't find one in my books; also I can't read french - is the webcite enough to add Voltaire to the refs for famous fungal poisonings? I'll have to see what I can do about the others. You can leave this until V. thapsus FAC is under control. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In terms of reffing books, all the material from the DR Benjamin book comes from one chapter; do you think it etter to have the book at the bottom and an abbreivated ref with each page through the ref section? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Yes, I'll do this soon :) )cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(sorry, made this the equivalent of a sticky thread in case you forgot. I won't go in for the home stretch with the toadstool until the Raven is sorted)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Plant defense against herbivory

Thank you for cleaning up all of those stray references!! It is appreciated :)--DO11.10 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Brya socks

Thanks for checking all of these and catching this one.[1] KP Botany 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Italics?

Why are you reverting to the italics version after I removed them all?[2] KP Botany 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you intended to do that, so I reverted your change, please let me know if you intended the reversion to the Brya version, and why. KP Botany 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that, but got totally confused in the midst of all the changes--there may be a strawman sock, also. Geeze! I was a bit surprised with all the socks, all the Brya edits. KP Botany 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Template category}}

When did this start to systematically sort everything in category:Template categories? It completely negates the point of using subcategories! Circeus 03:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to have a similar system to that used by {{Wikipedia category}}. Project categories are arranged in many levels under Category:Wikipedia administration, but are also added flatly into Category:Wikipedia categories. Having a list of all project categories easily available can be useful, and it requires no extra effort on our part as the categorization is done by the template. Similarly, template categories are in many levels under Category:Wikipedia templates, but also placed into Category:Template categories so that one can see them all at once if desired. As these categories are generally only in one or two other parent categories, I think having an extra link on the category bar at the bottom of the page is acceptable. Obviously template categories should be subcategorized by type, use and so on as well – Gurch 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. I just accidentally stumbled on that cat and got it confused with category:Wikipedia templates, which I have used repeatedly in the past. I feel really foolish right now Circeus 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, now you come to mention it, that could be rather confusing. I'll look into making the descriptions a bit clearer and linking one to the other. Thanks for bringing this to my attention – Gurch 03:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

checkuser blocks

Hi, well it's done now and I don't want to wheelwar, but you shouldn't revert a checkuser block without contacting the checkuser first (user:jpgordon in this case). The may screw up once in a while, but normally they take into account that the IP is shared or not in their comments. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

American Goldfinch

Hey Circeus if you've got time, Jude has done a pretty cracking job in sprucing up American Goldfinch and i think it compares rather well against Mourning Dove. Would be very grateful if you can have a look-see and see what you reckon. It is currently a GA nominee but I reckon FA is not far off....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input. Great job and much appreciated. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Korean mammals

Hi Circeus,

Oh, very well then, go ahead.  ;-) I didn't mean to be engaging in a WP:OWN violation, the changes just seemed a little strange on the surface. But I'm only too aware that my design sense (or lack thereof!) is generally at odds with what most people find ideal.

Thank you for taking an interest in this list, and for helping to improve it.  :-) -- Visviva 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Amanita phalloides at FAC

...I can't bear the suspense.. I think I've done all I can and I've nominated Amanita phalloides at FAC....

The issue of sources for the last section was (is) a vexed one. I added stuff from Benjamin who discusses it in detail which is very helpful, however I don't have a Voltaire handy. I will chase down original stuff if that is the general consensus.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Bleach episodes, such as it is

I'm not sure we've decided what we're doing with that page exactly. It was a list previously, and indeed the source of the list content on the sub articles, but then I realized it was nearly 200kb in length and that quality was suffering as a result, but thought we should summarize the arcs rather than just leave a blank section with {{main}} in each one. The end result is half List of Bleach episodes, half Plot of Bleach.

I suppose it could potentially be worked into a full article about both the production and plot of the anime. --tjstrf talk 06:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I might interject, the primary Bleach page has the (manga) header, so having List of Bleach episodes turn into [[Bleach (anime)]] might be appropiate, and more clearly define the two from each other. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Which would be completely wrong of us, since Bleach (manga) is about the series as a whole and only named (manga) because that is the original format of the work. --tjstrf talk 06:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As it is, there is not even a plot section in Bleach (manga)... Also, we have "main lists" in Wikipedia, so there's no reason the article can't be one. Circeus 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Would it still retain the title List of Bleach episodes, or would another be more appropiate? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it stays in the current state, a rename will be necessary. Or the summaries could be kept to the bare minimum: lists are not subject to WP:SUMMARY. Circeus 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Mammals of Canada

Perhaps...Pop a note off to Yomangani, Yomangani started the original article, I just thought it looked like a great list to begin with and put it up for a nomination...and Yomangani started a few others using a script program. I see you also make these similar listings of various animals. You two would make a great team! SriMesh | talk 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the link to your version on SriMesh's page - you could cover the status with a single ref to the IUCN, no need for hundreds of individual refs. Yomangani^talk 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyrtostylis

Thanks for that; I wholeheartedly agree. I had a crack at covering multiple circumscriptions at Banksia subg. Banksia, but haven't gotten around to doing all of the other taxa yet. Hesperian 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Toco.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Toco.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with cite_encyclopedia

Could you help with this: Template_talk:Cite_encyclopedia#Space_needed? I would change it, but I don't have permission. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Burrowing Owl

Thanks...I was a bit surprised my image has been so well recieved. User:Wsiegmund did a good job I think of eliminating most of the shadowing and brightened it up quite a bit. Thanks again.--MONGO 06:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Furry Critters

I've set up a discussion for furry critters right here as there's a few folk working on stuff 'round the place..feel free to add promising ones at the bottom so folk can jump right in....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bird at PR

...now for a real biggy.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Commiserations - deletionists causing more trouble than a rogue blackwarmetalgreymon on Angel Dust.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The other thing that needs going over but is completely different to other things I've been working on is Schizophrenia but the image thing above looks like a real headache...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Cardinals seasons

I responded to your opposition to the featured list candidacy of St. Louis Cardinals seasons. Do you have any other objections? Timpcrk87 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you still oppose the featured list candidacy of St. Louis Cardinals seasons??Timpcrk87 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IUCN Referencing in taxoboxes query on "Citing sources" page

Thanks—GRM 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

GA/A

Methinks you need to read the emboldened bit in the GA criteria here. ;-) Hesperian 00:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, if you don't think it is A-Class, I don't object to you demoting it. I just don't like to see it demoted on misguided procedural grounds. Hesperian 00:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can probably imagine, having seen me act with less than my full quota of dignity during a GA review: some of us think GA is a load of crap. That incident was the first of many times that I have seen poor articles promoted and good articles failed, on the basis of the opinion of a single, often inexperienced, reviewer. Most recently I saw Bon Scott failed solely because the lead didn't contain references! Then, after references were added, it was promoted, despite being, IMO, not really up to scratch yet. When GA gets its act together, then I'll be happy to treat it as a blocker for A-class. Until then, I like the fact that I can bypass GA altogether.

This procedural issue aside, I think you are highly qualified to be rating articles, so if you think an article isn't up to scratch you should be bold in demoting it.

Hesperian 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I had someone fail one of mine because it didn't contain photos, even though the GA guidelines specifically say that isn't a requirement, and the article in question was about a region which was mostly pretty non-descript and the only three interesting things within it were either secured or restricted facilities. Got it through in the end though... Orderinchaos 21:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOL template

Hi, I saw your proposal. I like the idea a lot and at one time was considering it. I'd support it if other members of wikiproject fishes (WP:FISH) and wikiproject aquarium fishes (WP:AQF) are ok with it. But only if WP:FISH banner template is under WP:TOL, and WP:AQF under WP:FISH. WP:Marine Life is not a parent project of WP:FISH. We are just overlapping projects as numerous fishes are NOT marine fishes (freshwater fishes, brackish fishes) and numerous marine animals are NOT fishes. This scope is even more obvious with WP:AQF which currently deals mostly with freshwater fishes. cheers, --Melanochromis 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to split things. I just wanted to personally let you know that I supported it. As soon as it's clear with the "hierarchical" thing, I'll post my support on the relevant talk pages. --Melanochromis 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Circeus, can I ask you to have a read and think about my comments on the unified WikiProject Australia banner at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Future (pretty much the entire page). I think you will find them relevant. Hesperian 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Circeus; seems I got a bit carried away with your proposal (my excitement for learning new template techniques bled through, apparently). I don't mean to step on your toes and am only responding to the criticisms with possible suggestions. I think it's a great idea. I'm eager to hear what you think about some of the comments there. It seems some people prefer a bottom-up approach instead of top-down, which is different from the rest of the unified project templates, right? Has there been a specific reason why they've all chosen top-down hierarchies? Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 08:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

table captions - Indian national cricket captains

Hi., thanks for leaving a note on the FLC. I tried making the change to "caption" template. However it did not look good and hence i am not too sure if we want to use 'caption' template. click here to see in caption template and click here to see in non-caption template. Please let me know which one is good and i shall make the change. Kalyan 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For the future

I like working on collabs so I've made a bit of a standing list here as a subpage of my userpage, just in case one comes up to collaborate on in the future if you think I'll like it too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whipped Slave FP Candidate

Just wanted to let you know that I've uploaded a couple of new edits of the whipped slave image for consideration. They may help with the image quality discussion. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Plant Importance

Thanks for that note. I think you're right about that, except for Eurybia divaricata, which is somewhat important economically as a garden plant, so I'll change that back to mid. Do you think that the endangered species should be listed at mid although most people probably haven't heard of them? Also, I noticed that you were changing the abbreviation of Guy L. Nesom from 'Nesom', which is his abbreviation as published in the index at Kew - to 'G.L. Nesom', making it inconsistent since the other authors are listed with their abbreviations. It's in the List of botanists by author abbreviation. I'll be more reasonable with the importance ratings though. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case G.L. Nesom would certainly be preferred. I don't know why the Kew database lists it differently. Sorry about that. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of IPNI, I made a List of Symphyotrichum species, but I could only find taxonomic information on the level of subgenera and sections from the Flora of North America: is it possible to find out the higher taxa of individual species with IPNI? Otherwise I will have to list the non-North American species in a separate unranked section that will probably be misleading and definitely inconsistent. Any ideas? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those resources. The site on Asterids looks especially informative. I'm actually doing an internship in the botany department at the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum and will have access to all of those photographed specimens. I don't start working there until August, but if you want photos of things other than type specimens (most of the type specimens there are somewhat obscure), I'd be happy to do it. Thanks again for your help.Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic of importance, I noticed that you rated the New England aster (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae) as low importance. It's a very popular plant that can be found in most any nursery in North America and Europe, so I changed it to mid. It might be helpful for us both to do a quick google search if we aren't familiar with a plant and see how many hits it has. "New England aster" (with the quotation marks in the search) has 65,800, while an obviously more unimportant plant like "Schreber's aster" has only 224. I suggest that we factor in the conservation status as well though. For example, if a plant is endangered or threatened, but still realtively unknown, I think it should be given mid importance in the hope of possibly informing more people about it. What do you think? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

apology

Hi Circeus - I sincerely apologize to you for the arbitrary un-blocking of your decisions on Bakasuprman and Anwar saadat. The un-blocking was connected to an ArbCom-related controversy and was wrong but since it is intimitely connected with an on-going case, I don't expect the responsible party to apologize for ignoring consensus. Please do not take offense over this - I can assure you that there is no reflection whatsoever on your conduct as a result. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere

(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the ferreting out of genus info.. now to work it into articles....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regional county municipality

Hi, I've changed Basse-Côte-Nord back to Lower North Shore because the latter is the customary English name for the geographical area, while the former can only be considered to be the name of the RCM-equivalent territory. Writing "Basse-Côte-Nord" can give the appearance of a circular definition, since we define equivalent territories in that section. Joeldl 09:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Thanks for offering to translate. The planning of translations is currently underway at User:Ral315/Board 2007. Ral315 » 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Series Banksia

Sorry for the horrible bolding brainfart there... Circeus 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you've been busy on my watchlist!

Regarding taxoboxes

• You nailed it with your latest edit summary on B. spinulosa: I like to put the full infrageneric placement in there when I create a stub, but once a proper taxonomy section is in place, I think it should be removed.
• I agree that "Banksia ser. Banksia" is overkill, but personally I find "Banksia, Banksia, Banksia, Banksia" a bit disturbing, so I prefer to go with "Banksia, B. subg. Banksia, B. sect. Banksia, B. ser. Banksia". But we needn't waste our time debating the finer points of formatting what will only appear in stub and start articles.
• But I must most strenuously disagree with your compaction of "B. e. subsp. macrantha" to "B. e. macrantha" As far as I know, botanical nomenclature requires an infraspecific rank at all times, even when the taxon name is abbreviated. The unranked trinomial is a zoological convention, and the apparent misapplication of a zoological convention to a plant makes us look foolish.

As for the over-bolding, I wanted some way of separating the placement and circumscription of the series from the taxonomic context. Bolding seemed like a reasonable way to go, but it didn't really look great, and I was aware that it was a MoS violation. Since I couldn't see a better way to handle it, I decided to leave it there to see how long I could get away with it. Less than two hours. :-D Thanks for keeping me honest there ;-) Hesperian 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I share your dislike for long taxoboxes. I would be happy not to list the infrageneric taxa in any of them, even the stubs... but unfortunately when I rolled out all the stubs in June last year I was not the wise old head I am now, and chose to include it. So the question becomes when to remove it. It is hard to justify removing information from an article on the basis of formatting preferences, so I don't remove the information until it is made redundant by the text. A randomly chosen example: Banksia pilostylis - a one-sentence stub with a horribly long taxobox; yet IMO it would be inappropriate to remove the infrageneric taxa from the taxobox without making an effort to work it into the text. Hence it sits there looking hideous for heaven knows how long. Hesperian 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Barthélemy d'Eyck

It is very bad practice to change reference editions from those used to American editions. Please don't do this. Johnbod 02:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Question for an Admin

A few days ago I edited an article on a Kingdom Hall, a building where Jehovah's Witnessess meet. The article said that the building are "clean and attractive", so I tagged the sentence as NPOV. I also tagged it for no refs as it had none. The editor, Joseph C, didn't change anything, but added a source from The Watchtower, a publicaton from their group, for that one sentence. He then removed my NPOV tag and Ref tag. The source itself is obviously biased towards their cause, and it also doesn't seem to be properly referrenced. This is a problem in almost all articles in their project and often times the Watchtower is the only thing refed. What can be done about it and what should I do? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 10:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wharncliffe Viaduct - Comment

Hi. Thanks for the reference-tweaking, however I have replaced the blank line above the navibox. I dislike intently seeing a navibox which has no clear line to separate it from the preceding text. (It ought to be possible for the Wiki S/W to handle this automatically!) So, for a while I was modifying templates to add a suitable 'clear' at the top to give it some 'breathing space'. That was, until someone pointed out that wherever naviboxes can butt together, such blank space is inappropriate. They recommended that I add a blank line to the affected articles instead...

Hence, a no-win situation. The more I edit WP, the more I understand about the problems with automatic layout and whitespace, so the more careful I am about how I 'edit' whitespace...

Personally, I would prefer to modify the template -- much neater solution. However, there is nothing actually wrong with my solution, and I'm sure it says somewhere in the MOS that some editors like having blank lines in articles to make editing easier and that said lines should not be removed unless causing a problem.

EdJogg 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wormmon.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wormmon.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Casimiro Gómez Ortega references

Thanks. I copied and pasted your fix on this one into the Rowland Biffen article that I did the same thing to. KP Botany 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bombax buonopozense

Is it really going to be necessary to resort to Request for Comment to get you, as an administrator, to stop removing appropriate maintenance templates? Surely you know policy, and policy supports sourcing. Erechtheus 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Prior to RfC, I have listed for a third opinion. Erechtheus 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a source (and will add another shortly), so don't worry. I've also found another, but it's in French and is in JSTOR. Are you able to access JSTOR articles? If so here it is. It's a bit old (1957), but it has a description and distribution map. If you have time to look though it, it would be very helpful. I found another from 1970 (also in French) that lists the countries where it's present (which is simple enough for me). You may want to check to make sure I didn't make a mistake though.

What a pain everyone is being today. I can't believe how much discussion went into this article over the most idiotic things. And the guy was telling me to use journals when I already had! Arrgh! Anyways, it's looking pretty good now. Any chance at a DYK? I reckon that the size of the tree or some of the uses would make for interesting facts. As for those French sources, I found a newer (2001) English one, which is preferred to a foreign language source. Feel free to look though them when you have the chance to see if you can find anything, but I doubt there is much up-to-date info in there compared to all of the sources you compiled. Thanks for your support in all of that pointless arguing. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the nomination. I think the big difference between this article and Kingdom Hall is that mine was, like you pointed out several times, only one line long and was obviously unsourced and unreliable. But I see your point of course. I can understand the uselessness of {{expand}}. It's quite redundant when an article is already so short. I suppose it could be useful on very large topics that are already quite long but need to be more thorough, though I don't think I've ever seen it used like that. Anyways, thanks again! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Kiwi

Ah, the Bulford Kiwi pic was wrongly uploaded? Pity. I'm going to look into the copyright details of Britgov-produced images, though - maybe we can re-upload it under the same conditions as USgov-produced images. Or maybe not. DS 22:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"List of Dryandra species"

There's a (small, but annoying) issue with letting George's taxonomic arrangement of Dryandra act as a species list for Dryandra: it leaves Dryandra prionotes linked solely from List of Banksia species. Also, you originally omitted to actually link George's arrangement from Dryandra, I've fixed that. Circeus 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true. We could add a mention of it to the "Legacy" section?

Unfortunately, restoring the list in Banksia ser. Dryandra, or creating a List of Banksia ser. Dryandra species article, would result in a similar problem: When Mast and Thiele transferred Dryandra into Banksia, they transferred all but one species into B. ser. Dryandra, preferring to leave Dryandra subulata incertae sedis in Banksia subg. Banksia. So that species would have to be omitted from any list of dryandras, or at least given special treatment. What do you reckon we should do?

I didn't so much omit to link to it, as start and not get around to finishing a proper taxonomy section. Hence the taxonomy section that finishes in 1792 ;-) I do this kind of thing a lot - too much to do, and trying to do it all at once. Whose idea was it to start a WikiProject on an entire genus? That is way too broad a scope :-D

Hesperian 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for Wikipedia to list it under sect. (now subser., I suppose) Armatae? Circeus 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been wrestling with questions like this for months. Mast and Thiele transferred the entire genus as B. ser. Dryandra. The only reason they transferred it at series rank was because they hadn't finished sampling Dryandra yet, and they were convinced that once sampling was finished they would end up with a phylogeny of Banksia sensu lato that is at odds with George's arrangements. The transfer was thus an interim measure, and the priority was to cause as little nomenclatural disruption as possible. Transferring at series rank meant they didn't have to make any changes to any Banksia sensu strictu taxa. However, it also meant that the rich infrageneric classification of Dryandra had to be set aside... but they can't be expected to care about that since they are convinced that it will soon have to go anyhow.

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with these problems is to surrender to the uncertainty. There is no "taxonomic arrangement of Banksia"; there are only Brown's and Meisner's and Bentham's and George's (1981) and Thiele and Ladiges' and George's (1999) taxonomic arrangements of Banksia, none of which are current thanks to Mast and Thiele overturning the latest one without proffering a replacement.

So to come to the point, no, I don't think so. D. sect. Armatae has not been transferred into Banksia at any rank, so there is no valid use for it except in historical contexts. i.e. The only way we can list it under Armatae is if we explicitly state that it is placed in D. sect. Armatae in George's arrangement, which is no longer current.

Hesperian 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just realised I misunderstood your question. I'm sure George (2005) gives an infrageneric placement and identification key amendment for D. prionotes - I'll check tonight - so there's no reason not to specify its placement when including it in George's taxonomic arrangement of Dryandra. Meanwhile, the fact that it is most closely related to D. armata makes it pretty obvious what I'll find. Hesperian 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Previewed this message and saw your clarification. Sorry for my waffly and irrelevant reply. Hesperian 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I hereby award Circeus the standard triple crown for his work on Verbascum thapsus (GA and FA) and Common Milkweed (DYK). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There ya go. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:History of Russian Manchuria

I don't know how templates are usually made, but this one certainly "leaves much to be desired", as User:Ezhiki said on my talk page. I would appreciate your attempt to improve its layout. Furthermore, it is transcluded into far too many pages (such as Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky, for instance). --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Landmark FLC

So far we have almost 80 new stubs. I should add that I am in the mids of color coding the lines according to some navigational templates I have added. Your comments are appreciated. I will finish up the coloring tomorrow. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not really concerned about the fact that your support was tentative. It was that it was before I started color coding the table and interlinking the articles with templates. I wanted to make sure you noticed what I had done so that it did not slip by you before the voting closed. I had also hoped for an opinion on these changes. I sort of view you as the godfather of FLC and wanted your approval. Should I give similar notices to all other voters. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by anon comment. I will think about removing none. In Memorials and Monuments, I think it is important to keep however. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the diff. I do not know what you are talking about. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama

I found all kinds of inconsistencies with the data, and I am fixing it. I trusted the original page too much. I ended doing a total overhaul. I will let you know when I am done in the nomination page. Sorry :-/--Legionarius 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Circeus. I guess I made all the modifications you requested to the list. PLease, what do I need to do for making your vote go from that ugly "Oppose" to a beautiful "Support"?:-) Thanks.--Legionarius 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! BTW, I did another one... not sure if it is FL Candidate-ready yet. What do you think? YOu are the expert :-)--Legionarius 06:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I guess I fixed 2 to 5, but I am a little lost on (1). Could you please explain a bit more? And about (3), I am a little wary of putting 10 references for explaining the non-nominees, so I put a single reference to the index page. Not sure if it is acceptable.--Legionarius 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (copied from my talk page)

Well, I am all against double Wikilinks, but I was thinking about this situation: you go to a specific year, you find "Elia kazan", but he is wikilinked before: then, or you go back to find the link, or you have to google him... I do not think it is very comfortable...what do you think? and... I changed the "external links" to "general references". The non-nominees are 1948 TO 1959, that's why I was saying 10 references...--Legionarius 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done!--Legionarius 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Maryland

Greetings. I noticed you opposed this list for having too many recent fair use images. Actually, there was only one, and it was added recently. There aren't any anymore since I deleted that particular today as RFU for 7 days. The only other fair use images are for Governors in the mid-20th Century who are deceased and of which I could not find any free-use photos. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

They were aligned center, but then I removed the code that was causing it. See how it looked before with this edit. --Tom (talk - email) 23:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's against standard practice to center tables. Keep them aligned left for consistency. --Tom (talk - email) 00:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)