Eucalyptus marginataEdit

Hi I noticed my addition to jarrah description (largest trees) was deleted. Is there a problem with the information. These trees has been identified by WA park and wildlife for years. They have been carefully measured with specialist equipment with images to match. I would like to re add the information as I believe it is important to share the size exceptional specimens can attain. Cheers Panthera88 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

talk page stalker - you really need to get a very clear and thorough explanation of what WP:RS means - this is an online encyclopedia with standards for referencing - and not addition of imformation that might be personally important to someone - if it is not supported by clear and publicly available reliable sources, it is WP:OR and not suitable. JarrahTree 14:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Panthera88: The information about the size of Eucalyptus marginata was added by User:Thyacine. This seems to suggest Sockpuppetry. (My apologies if I have misinterpreted something here.) Irrespectively, the reference cited (Western Australia Giant Trees), interesting as it is, is a self-published source and not acceptable to Wikipedia. Similar information from the same self-published source added to the pages about Eucalyptus patens, E. diversicolor, E. gomphocephala, E. jacksonii and Corymbia calophylla is not reliable and will be reverted. Gderrin (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gderrin Thanks for feedback. When I first created an account I wanted to change it (misspelling) back it didn’t work so I created a new account but the original seems to show up too? I understand about the WP:OR. In this instance this is the only source. Many tree volumes published have only been measured once. The General Sherman the worlds biggest tree to my knowledge has only been measured 3 times in 90 years. If I use a different source ie National Register of Big Trees would that be an acceptable alternative? Cheers Panthera88 (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Panthera88: Thanks for the explantation of the multiple usernames - I understand. If by "National Register of Big Trees" you mean this site, it is not an acceptable alternative. It is another dot-com apparently self-published by Derek McIntosh. Information on subjects like the "world's biggest tree" may be in the Guinness World Records, but even that is generally not accepted as a reliable source. (See WP:RSPSRC.) I do not want to discourage you - I appreciate your interest in eucalypts, but it is important (especially on this subject) to use information from reliable sources. The guidelines on the page WP:RS describe and explain the meaning of "reliable sources". Please feel free to respond here, or to ask for help at The Teahouse and most importantly, keep editing! Gderrin (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Elaeocarpus, thanks, shortcutEdit

@Gderrin: Hello and thanks for your improving the Elaeocarpus page. Jts1882 alerted me to a shortcut. There is a template, Template:Format species list that takes a list like a copied one from POWO and turns it into a WP list. May I demonstrate on the species list of Elaeocarpus some suggestions for improvement. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: Hello Brunswicknic. Thanks muchly. Although I have almost finished the Elaeocarpus list, there are other species lists I would like to work on (e.g. Teucrium) and any help with shortcuts would be appreciated. I've had a look at the template, and if I understand it correctly, it would also allow the author name(s) to be included, but synonyms would have to be deleted if I were to use the list at POWO? Also a bit tricky to keep articles already written but not in the list, that would need to be redirected to a new name? Gderrin (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin: Synonyms, &c., yes they require separate treatment, same with the geography and vernacular names on some lists. What I do is take section to my sandbox, put in the new list and then add the "extras" back manually or in separate section, see Memecylon#A list of Memecylon species for an example of what I prefer to do. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Brunswicknic: That's great. I will definitely do that next time. Thanks again. Gderrin (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin: It's a big list and with all the redlinks it's a bit much on the page. I know we can do Collapsible Section/List, I just have learn/re-acquaint myself with the coding. Thanks for your contributions here and on WP generally. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: Agreed, but the article also needs a lot of work in other areas. I'm happy to do a clean up, add better refs and create a separate "List of Ealaeocarpus species" unless you're a glutton for punishment! Also planning to expand the Australian species' pages. Gderrin (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: No, I am enjoying new pages too much at the moment, between you and me (not like anybody else can see this) I am 3 species away from the end of the list of firewood taxa in Pauline Dy Phon Plants used in Cambodia. After this I can't make up my mind to work on PNG taxa, keep on Cambodian taxa, and then there are the redlinked taxa and botanists in articles I have created. So, your proposal sounds real good to me. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ochna arboreaEdit

Hello Gderrin, I'm not sure if this move from Elaeocarpus integrifolius Lam. should have taken place. This species is an endemic of Mauritius, not southern African. I believe it is the synonym Elaeocarpus integrifolius Sieber ex C.Presl you were thinking of. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Declangi: Hello Declangi. Thanks - indeed you are correct. My bad. I will fix. Gderrin (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Endemic categorizationEdit

Hello, just a friendly reminder to always categorize endemic species under their respective categories, for example, Elaeocarpus munroi should be in Endemic flora of India and Goodenia granitica should be in Endemic flora of Western Australia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pladica (talkcontribs) 00:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pladica: I am happy to leave that to you. Gderrin (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

more botanistsEdit

I have actually been working on adding bios for a few of the red links in the "List of Botanists by botanical abbreviation" article (or whatever it is called). For instance, I recently added Edward Whittall and Anna B. Nickels. Nickels was particularly interesting; I thought it was too long to include in the article, but in the biographical article I drew most of the info from, you'll find an account of hers about a day trip into the Mexican mountains to collect cactus that is pretty amusing. Regards, Brianyoumans (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brianyoumans: Interesting articles indeed! Keep up the great work. All the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Australian rainforest keyEdit

Hi Gderrin. Just a heads up about the old RFK that used to be found at trin[dot]org[dot]au As you probably know it has been superseded, but yesterday I noticed that the domain is once again working but it brings up a rather sinister-looking page. There are probably many articles that still contain references and links to that old URL (particularly Australian ones) and I've started searching for them and replacing them with an updated link to the current RFK.Junglenut (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Junglenut: Hello Junglenut. Thanks. Not exactly sure what you mean about "trin[dot]org[dot]au" or "sinister-looking page" but any help with updating links would be greatly appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin: Ah, ok. I've seen your name a lot in edits of pages, and since I mostly work on Australian rainforest flora I assumed you were familiar with it too. Anyway, the Australian Rain Forest Key (RFK) v.6 was hosted on that site I mentioned. It is now up to v.8 and hosted on a different site. I don't want to type the old URL without the brackets because it will be displayed as a link. Junglenut (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Junglenut: I guess I regularly come across this material indirectly, just by searching the name of a species (eg. Elaeocarpus carolinae). However I can see that some earlier articles I wrote, such has Vanda hindsii now have broken links to the old "Trin keys" site, and that this is the new link. Bit of a pain to go searching for articles with similar link rot. I think that for the moment, I will not worry. If some kind person makes the repair, I'll thank them. If it's tagged "deadref", I'll make the repair myself. There are more important jobs to do. (I will fix the Vanda article though.) Gderrin (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin: Yes that link is current for Australian orchids, but the Australian rainforest key (which only covers species that occur in rainforest, and is what my initial message is about) is now at https://apps.lucidcentral.org/rainforest/text/intro/index.html. If you've not done anything with those taxa, all good :) — Junglenut (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Elaeocarpus dentatusEdit

Hello Gderrin,

Wondering what your opinion is on creating articles for the described variants Elaeocarpus dentatus var. dentatus and Elaeocarpus dentatus var. obovatus and making Elaeocarpus dentatus describe both variants - not just E. dentatus var. dentatus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elaeocarpus_dentatus#Creating_the_variety_pages

Thanks - Beeveria (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beeveria: Hmmm...I guess. I can see problems though. The varieties are not mentioned anywhere that I can find except the New Zealand Organisms Register and New Zealand Plant Conservation Network - nothing in Plants of the World Online and no source that I can find for Cheeseman's paper describing Elaeocarpus dentatus var. obovatus. To my mind, it would be more important to clean up the E. dentatus page first. There should, in my opinion, be at least a little about the taxonomic history of the species (eg. that it was originally described in 1776 as Dicera dentata.) Since it is a species that interests you, why not concentrate on the page you already have and improve it to A-Class or better? The variety articles may be little better than stubs. Gderrin (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it may be best to just include more on the varieties on the page itself and taxonomy is definitely something it's missing - Thanks! Beeveria (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Dracophyllum (formerly Beeveria) here, just to say that a Taxonomy section has been added. Might get around to buffing the rest later. Cheers Dracophyllum 09:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Placement of Dracophyllum arboreum in the genusEdit

Sorry to bother you again Gderrin but I am in the process of writing Dracophyllum arboreum and, given your experience, I wanted to ask about the whether the sectioning done here > https://archive.org/details/transactions-and-proceedings-royal-society-new-zealand-80-001-017/mode/2up? is the same kind of thing to what is in Banksia marginata? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeveria (talkcontribs)

@Beeveria: Not a bother at all! I hope I have understood your question. If by "sectioning" you mean placing the species of Dracophyllum into subgenera as section as was done here - no, I don't think so. I can't find any papers on that subject for Dracophyllum. It's more important I think, to get the taxonomy correct. Dracophyllum arboreum was first formally described in 1902 by Leonard Cockayne in the Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute.[1] Let me know if I have anything wrong. Good luck with the article. And let me know if you want any help. Gderrin (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin: Thanks for your reply, the paper on separating Dracophyllum into subgenera is the one above (archive.org etc) - I have added it to D. arboreum now let me know your thoughts on the article as is. I also found this huge thesis on Dracophyllum > https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/950 which I might have a look at in a sec. Beeveria (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Beeveria: Looks fine to me. Keep going. Lots of other kiwi species (including lots of dracophyllums) need articles. More like this one would be great! Gderrin (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin Thank you so much! I'll work more on Dracophyllum Beeveria (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cockayne, Leonard (1902). "A Short Account of the Plant-covering of Chatham Island". Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute. 34: 318. Retrieved 22 April 2021.
Another update, the sectioning I was using was from 1956 and there is a cladistic analysis from 2010. This I sorted out a while ago. Cheers Dracophyllum 09:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

About: Goodenia stirlingii - "Stirling, James (1852 - 1905)" - J.Stirl.Edit

Hi Gderrin. It would appear that the specific epithet "stirlingii" refers to one of those James Stirling-s that doesn't have an article yet. He does have an IPNI standard abbreviation. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Shirt58: Yep. 'Fraid so. That's why I linked to the ANBG page. It might be possible to dig up some information on this James Stirling. According to this page, Mount Stirling was named after him. (Deadlinked ref. unfortunately) I've been able to dig up this paper by him - according to the ANBG article, there are others. (There's a difference in the date of his death.) Gderrin (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for peer review helpEdit

Hi Gdderin. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. I am trying my best to get the article to B class hopefully. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :) Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa

Thank you so much :)Sparklingkull (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

well doneEdit

It couldnt happen to a nicer person! Surviving the travails of the english wikipedia community, to intrepidly improve the field of material about the plants of oz - well done, and thanks JarrahTree 07:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello JarrahTree. Thanks mate. Gderrin (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

barn stars are never enough! trust you are safe and away from the plague! JarrahTree 07:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and looking for receiving your review today!Edit

Thank you very much for your valuable sharing and I fixed the things you advised. I would appreciate it and looking to receive your review today. Thanks again, Gderrin (talk)! Camorange (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is awesome!Edit

Thank you very much for your enthusiastic help, Gderrin (talk). It's really great for me! Thanks a lot! Camorange (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Plantae Barnstar
After thousands of articles, I'm amazed that you don't have one of these already.

Thank you (TheAwesomeAtom). Gderrin (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcomeEdit

I appreciate your welcome. I will go to that edit and correct the grammar, etc that you have cited. At least the ones that I can figure out how you want it to read. If you find any other mistakes, would you please just correct them or tell me how you want them corrected, not delete the entire edit. I appreciate your help so much.

Regarding Plantdrew, I followed the wiki instructions by notifying Plantdrew on their talk page using the wiki template provided, I have not accused them or reported them yet. The definition for edit war "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree" definitely applies in this case. And also from the Edit Warring help page "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." Plantdrew has changed edits deleting similar mentions from other editors on 8 different occasions. See below list

Thanks again for your help - 98.26.118.255 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-ew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings%2C_Nevada&type=revision&diff=1028440439&oldid=1025534857
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings%2C_Nevada&type=revision&diff=1021948563&oldid=1021901414
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings,_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=995545457
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings,_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=903350671
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings,_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=882118486
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings,_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=840234811
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings,_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=780585211
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodsprings,_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=770453720

It appears the other editor has corrected everything except it's vs its and the wording meme tourism. What other wording would you like me to use instead of meme tourism ? - 98.26.118.255 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations!Edit

  40,000+ edits
Congratulations on your 40,000th edit (and more). You are a great contributor to the representation of Australian plants on Wikipedia. The image is your second upload to Commons (in case you've forgotten). Oronsay (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

threat by soil degradation and overlinkingEdit

Hi. Your revert appears a little puzzling: We are talking about immediate threats to the species in question. And you really think these weren't relevant enough to be linked? Come on. -- Kku (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kku: Hello Kku - thanks for your interest in Eucalyptus alligatrix. Of course soil degradation is important and relevant, but so is ringbarking, weed invasion and grazing by livestock. Most, if not all readers of this article, will know what is meant by all of these words and phrases. On the other hand, they may not know what "coppice" and "pedicel" mean, and probably will not know where Eildon, Jamieson and the other places mentioned in the distribution are - that's why they are linked. As mentioned in the guidelines on linking, "Everyday words understood by most readers in context are usually not linked". Gderrin (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
"Soil degradation" is certainly NOT an everyday word. Just ask around and see which ideas if any on the topic you'll find. Besides, we are talking about a phenomenon that has global significance. Thus, I do not find your argument entirely convincing. -- Kku (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Kku: Actually "soil degradation' is not a word, but I understand your meaning. I also agree with you, - "soil retrogression and degradation" is important and has global significance. Weed invasion, ringbarking, grazing by livestock on native vegetation and inappropriate fire regimes are also of global importance. That does not justify a link for every word and phrase. I'm not sure what would be achieved by my "asking around", but soil conservation is an important issue in my country. At the national level, protecting Australia's soil is a major issue for the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and at the state level the Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales is entirely devoted to the issue. The soil degradation article is valuable and well written, but linking to it from articles like this one, is not going to increase the number of people who read it. As a matter of fact, E. alligatrix is not threatened by soil degradation - it is only one of the factors affecting the small, isolated population of the subspecies limaensis. Gderrin (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

citation neededEdit

It's customary to place a "citation needed" tag on sentences that you feel are lacking a citation, not remove the material, especially material that is not at all controversial. Also, please make an effort to find the citation first. Removal of uncited information ia a very last resort, and I will have to ask you to refrain from doing it again in cases such as Zanthoxylum ovalifolium. Abductive (reasoning) 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - sorted now. Gderrin (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Boronia hippopala/usEdit

See the taxonbar now at Boronia hippopala, showing the databases using the IPNI-approved spelling. It is pretty clearly an error in Latin by the authors which the ICNafp requires to be corrected. I'll fix the article later if no-one else does. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I don't get it! Which authors? Neither Boronia hippopala nor B. hippopalus is mentioned in Duretto's Taxon (2020) paper. In his original paper in Muelleria (2003), Duretto gave the spelling B. hippopala. I can't find the incorrect spelling anywhere, other than in PoWO and IPNI. Unless I have a very different understanding of English from you, the correct spelling, according to both Duretto and the Code, is B. hippopala. The other issue is that after "Former species", you have "Species no longer placed in Boronia include Boronia acanthoclada". Are you intending to create new Cyanothamnus articles with redirects from the old names? Nevertheless, I do appreciate the work you've done in updating the species list, incorporating the conclusions of the Taxon paper. Thank you. Gderrin (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Duretto gave the spelling of the epithet as hippopala as though it were an adjective agreeing with Boronia. However, if as IPNI says, it's derived from hippo and palus, palus isn't an adjective but a noun (as Stearn's Botanical Latin says on p. 460 in my edition – the normal adjective used from palus is palustris.) There's no adjective palus from which the feminine pala could be derived. Art. 60.1 of the ICNafp says "The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors and the standardizations imposed by [list] 60.8 (terminations)". Art. 32.2 says "Names of species or infraspecific taxa are validly published even when their epithets were published with an improper Latin or transcribed Greek termination but otherwise in accordance with this Code; they are to be changed to accord with [ref to articles giving the rules]". Thus, on this analysis, the termination is wrong, and is required to be standardized. Hence IPNI corrected the epithet to hippopalus, which all the Kew databases and Tropicos use. The form hippopala can more neutrally be described as an orthographical variant, so it's better to change to this, I think.
On the second issue, well, all the articles do need moving to Cyanothamnus at some point; the evidence that Boronia needs to be split seems clear in both doi:10.1002/tax.12242 (the authors of which are all Australian) and the Appelhans paper. I suppose I'll get round to it eventually if no-one else does first. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Thanks for your detailed explanation. Sure looks wrong, but I agree with you that apparently Boronia hippopalus is correct. I'm happy to change the name of the article with an explanation. I confess that normally I'd object to changing the source from APC to PoWO, but since Marco Duretto is an authority on Boronia, having named many of them and the APC is slow to update, I'm comfortable with the change. I'm happy to do the necessary updates and redirects. We may be able to get back to APC in a year or five! Gderrin (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm only using PoWO for the species lists because it seems to have mainly been updated for the recent changes to Rutaceae classification (at least as far as this summary – can't expect any changes in the very new 2021 paper yet). Where sources like Duretto et al. or Appelhans et al. differ from PoWO in regard to genera, I'm using them, but the problem can be that only older sources have comprehensive species lists.
I'll very happily leave you to move the relevant Boronia articles to Cyanothamnus! :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Fantastic work moving all those articles to Cyanothamnus! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Gastrodia agnicellusEdit

Unless I'm missing something? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat: Hello YorkshireExpat. That was a definite brain fade. Sorry. I reverted your edit, added a note to the same effect at the bottom of the list, and added Gastrodia agnicellus to the species list, all quite carefully and deliberately! Now have a headache from banging my head on the desk. Gderrin (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Gderrin: No worries. Please don't bang it too hard! YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Myrtaceae generaEdit

Hi, this paper, with all Australian editors, merges a lot of Myrtaceae genera native to Australia into Melaleuca:

I've checked some of these, and so far, as far as I can see, APC doesn't accept the mergers, although all are accepted by PoWO, and most by APweb here. So I'm hesitating as to what to do. Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Peter coxhead: Long story, short. I basically started this WP journey with Melaleuca and bought Lyndley Craven's monograph. Craven considered Callistemon a synonym of Melaleuca. (More to the story here.) I believed at the time, that since I was using Craven's monograph, I should follow Craven's taxonomy. Two problems now - the Australian Plant Census and most Australian herbaria do not agree with Craven (now deceased) and new species of Callistemon have been described with no equivalent in Melaleuca. (eg. Callistemon purpurascens - the only Callistemon accepted by POWO!).[1] I have the "feeling" that most Australian botanists consider Callistemon to be distinct from Melaleuca, agree with Udovicic and Spencer,[2] and would be even more strongly opposed to merging Beaufortia and the others. (Makes me wonder - on what basis does POWO decide to go with Craven and not the APC?) Gderrin (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been a bit slow in getting back to this thread (distracted by a technical issue over italicization). (Just as a side point, PoWO doesn't "accept" Callistemon purpurascens; it treats it as "unplaced", which is its usual practice when it doesn't accept the genus but there's no published name in the genus it wants to use.) PoWO, in general, seems to side with "lumpers" rather than "splitters", so its treatment of these genera isn't too surprising. Anyway, provided that APC is referenced, I agree that it's better to leave these genera as they are. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Douglas, Steven M. (2015). "Callistemon purpurascens (Myrtaceae) : a new (etc.)". Telopea. 18. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  2. ^ Udovicic, Frank; Spencer, Roger D. (2012). "New combinations in Callistemon (Myrtaceae)". Muelleria. 30 (1): 23–25. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
@Peter coxhead: No drama - thanks for the reply. Gderrin (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  I got impressed with your work Bursaria reevesii. Happy editing Onmyway22 talk 09:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Daviesia devitoEdit

 On 2 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daviesia devito, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that devito and schwarzenegger are two Australian peas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daviesia devito. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daviesia devito), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Daviesia schwarzeneggerEdit

 On 2 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daviesia schwarzenegger, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that devito and schwarzenegger are two Australian peas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daviesia devito. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daviesia schwarzenegger), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

BaeckiaEdit

Jeez, nice spot of the reclassification of the Baeckia species. Thanks for moving all of those over. We are all counting down to the day when COVID arrives en masse in WA and making the most of a hot summer. Hope all is well. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks mate - all well. I'm also counting to when I can visit again. Planning to photo hundred of species! Gderrin (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy fix of my editEdit

In the article herbaceous plants I was going to make some fixes to my "unreverted" edit in a hour before, then you came did a whooping 12... 12 edits, so quickly. thanks for helping me with that, 100% it was unexpected. I was considering a barnstar actually. Dawn Lim (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 020Edit

April 2022—Issue 020


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Red panda by LittleJerry and BhagyaMani
  White-headed fruit dove by AryKun
  List of ochotonids by PresN
  Guadeloupe woodpecker by OnlyFixingProse, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Magnetoreception by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Mover of molehills
  Macauley Island by Jo-Jo Eumerus, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Black-breasted buttonquail by Casliber, reviewed by Ealdgyth
  Florence Merriam Bailey by GhostRiver, reviewed by SquareInARoundHole

Newly nominated content

  Black-breasted buttonquail by Casliber
  List of birds of Tuvalu by AryKun
  List of cingulates by PresN
  List of didelphimorphs by PresN
  Stegotherium by Larrayal
  Resplendent quetzal by SadAttorney613
  Electroreception and electrogenesis by Chiswick Chap
  Muja (alligator) by Amanuensis Balkanicus
  Punctelia graminicola by Esculenta
  Siegfried Huneck by Esculenta
  Abiogenesis by Chiswick Chap

  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer grantedEdit

Hi Gderrin. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)