User talk:Rkitko/Archive3

Agreed

Agree, See Detroit website began as mainly photographs,its seems to have become more commerical. It was moved to Michigan Central Station because its photo value is mainly that now. Agee the website is no longer of value. Thomas Paine1776 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Janis Ian

Thx for catching the edit so quickly. I like how we keep on top of things. I do believe, however, that the link you made is not the best choice.

The reason I linked to a category is that if you look at the Music history article to which you linked, it currently only goes to 1950, which is one year before Janis was even born. If you look at the History of music article, linked to from the Music history page, it is concerned with music history prior to Janis Ian, with the exception of the 20th century music link.

The 20th century link, while encompassing the times of some of Janis' contributions to music history, deals with ONLY contemporary music, and not the totality of music history.

The sentence in which the link appears deals with contemporary music since the existence of the Grammies, so it could be argued that the 20th century link would be appropriate.

However, it is my opinion that the 'Grammy' time frame can be deduced by clicking on the existing Grammy Hall of Fame. This link, although it doesn't link directly to the Hall of Fame, does provide access to Hall of Fame article and the Grammy article, from which the time frame is referenced.

BUT the link in question is simply for 'music history,' in a sentence dealing with the time period from 1972/1973 to present, therefore a link to the Music history category is best suited since it reflects the actual text of the link (music history), and from its contents, one can find the time frame within the context of the sentence in which the link is made. If there is another solution, I do not currently know.

I think there should be more work done within the music category. I will go check out wikiprojects and see what, if anything, is being planned...

I am also placing this message on Talk:Janis Ian

Thx, SteinAlive 06:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick reply. I am only 3 weeks new to wiki - there is SO MUCH to learn! I am not aware of any other pages which link to a category from a wikilink within an article or if there is a policy on the issue, but that was the only fix I could come up with in short time. (I did see an official wikipage from which I learned about the colon in front of the category, which seems to indicate that in certain instances at least it is ok to link to category pages) Thus far, most of my edits have consisted of adding wikilinks where they seem appropriate, but I have also reverted some vandalism and entered some citations. I plan to go over the whole Janis Ian article to wikilink for dates and other links and ensure only the first instance of a term is linked.

I understand and thank you for the WP: PIPE info. I don't think that the category link would be considered an easter egg since it is still on topic - it just allows the user to choice what part of the currently-available topical information on music history (s)he wants to go to - although not quite 'intuitive'.

Oh, I am a fan. Her last album touches me deeply. (currently listening to 'Great Divide') And thank you for being my first entry on my talk page - whatever that means. SteinAlive 08:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mindys12345 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will do that instead Thanks Mindys12345 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Genlisea aurea

Nice work on the Genlisea aurea article (I plan to copyedit etc. later today when I get a chance). I was going to nominate it for DYK, but I see you've already done so. :) Another picture or two would be nice... maybe a diagram of the traps? I'll see what I can do if I get a chance here in the next few days. --NoahElhardt 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stylidium graminifolium

On 8 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stylidium graminifolium, which you created or substantially expanded. 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} 05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Austrobaileya articles

I'm sorry to say I can't help you. Austrobaileya is the publishing organ of the Queensland Herbarium, and gets very little circulation. You'd have to talk to either someone in Queensland (I'm in Western Australia, about 5000 kilometres away), or someone with access to a Herbarium library.

I can give you full sources though:

• Bean, A.R. (1999) A revision of Stylidium sect. Debilia Mildbr., S. sect. Floodia Mildbr. and S. sect Lanata A.R.Bean (Stylidiaceae). Austrobaileya 5(3):427-455
• Bean, A.R. (2000) A revision of the Stylidium subg. Andersonia (R.Br. ex G.Don) Mildbr. (Stylidiaceae). Austrobaileya 5(4):589-649

This might come in useful to you. And when researching names of Australian plants, I recommending this.

Hesperian 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Depending on how determined you are this might help too. ;-) Hesperian 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Yep, Nuytsia is the Western Australian Herbarium journal. I've no problems accessing that one ;-) Hesperian 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been Approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. ST47Talk 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unaware of Copyright Violation

I am sorry about the copyright violation. I wasn't trying to pass off the site as my own work at any time. What had happened was that I wanted to make a page for it and then come back to it later. I lost track of it and later on, well after I had put up the article, I read that it was a copyright violation to put up pages when they directly reference a website. I honestly completely forgot and swear it was not intentional. You will see that since the last week or two, since I read the policy, I didnt quote directly from the website. Again, I am sorry, didn't mean to pass it on as my own work. I hope that I don't get penalized for this...I plead ignorance and hope I may be exonerated and am requesting info on how I may be.Arnabdas 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio plant articles

I have been trying to salvage some copyvio plant articles (which I think you originally tagged) by removing the copyvio part of each and leaving a stub with only the bare facts of its classification. If you check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, you will find a number of plant articles that need to be fixed in this way, either by removing everything that is a copyvio or replacing the copyvio text with rewritten text. If you have the time, could you try to fix them? --Eastmain 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

African plants

Hello again! As we discussed before, PROTA has asked me to add brief contributions based on their publications, so we'll be using this user name to be clear. Thanks for comments; I agree on both the external link and taxobox. Regards, PROTA 10:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Unprotection of Dorothea Dix

Hi Rkitko! 'Biographies' in that policy actually refers to biographies of living persons, but I agree with the rest of your analysis. The article is now on my watchlist also, and I'll help with the vandalism, but if it gets unbearable, please do feel free to request reprotection. Regards, – Riana_ऋ 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oriental Sweetgum

Hi Rtitko! You moved Oriental Sweetgum to Liquidambar orientalis. It's not that it bothers me greatly, but I read American Sweetgum for title over Liquidambar styraciflua. Regards. Cretanforever 12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that, for the naming conventions, it makes more sense to treat all the species in the genus together. I can not venture an opinion on American Sweetgum because I do not how significant the tree is, economically or culturally. Especially in the viewpoint of the people who share the same habitat as the tree of course. Regards. Cretanforever 17:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Geysers

On 21 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Geysers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Aquarius • talk 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I neither created nor expanded that article. I simply nominated it. But thanks for the notification! --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PLANTS reformat

I haven't seen any strong objections to your Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Sandbox proposal. Check for updates since you grabbed the original and give it a try. I'm just passing through the Project while I'm working a source book, but it looks to me like an improvement. (SEWilco 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

DYK

On 25 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oreostylidium, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 18:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Genlisea margaretae , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Aksi_great (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Awn

Sorry about that, i'll remember that next time > Rugby471 ^talk 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

suggestions for inclusion?

Hello, I noticed that you removed the external link to the BC Center for Corporate Citizenship from the CSR advocates section of the Corporate Social Responsibility page. I've used this organization's resources for CSR study, and they do provide a lot of balanced, well-researched material that can be helpful to those interested in corporate citizenship. A lot of that material is available (for free) on their site, which is why I linked to it. Can you please suggest the best way for me to include a reference to them on the CSR page without violating any of Wikipedia's rules? I feel that they're an important voice in the CSR world, and they provide some valuable perspective on the topic. Thanks! Rebeccamw 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thanks for the useful edit summary.[1] I never know if I'm supposed to do those pages or not. Now I know. KP Botany 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Red clover

Hi Rkitko. Thanks for your information on naming conventions, as related to plants. CApitol3 12:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rkitko. In the article Acacia, I had some listings of trees by names (from literature) that were non-accepted names (example: Acacia nubica syn. for Acacia oerfota, accepted name per ILDIS). In the Acacia article, I changed the names to the accepted names, while indicating in the edit summaries the reason. I created redirect pages to the accepted names from the non-accepted names and quoted the source (ILDIS) in the edit summary of the redirect page. How do I best indicate in the Acacia article's references or the article itself that the notes (references) refer to non-accepted synonyms, but apply to the accepted names now listed? In other words, if someone were to look at a reference (end note) and go to the reference source on the web, they would see the non-accepted name instead of the accepted one referenced in the article and there would be confusion or it may not be academically acceptible. I would like the reader to know (if they look) that the name they see in the reference is an old synonym for the accepted name of the tree listed in the article. The accepted species names listed are in table form and I'm hoping to be able to put the info about the synonyms maybe in the notes, or wherever you think is best. What form do you think the notes should take?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Dcarlson 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I actually joined wikipedia to help the much beleaguared (spelling?) Cyber Empires page. I was told by a wiki pro I know in person that me removing the tag 'not notable' could cause a lot of bile or something because I was totally new, and Ive never had the confidence nor surety of knowledge to remove it, even though I added in plenty (I thought) of references to it to show it was notable. Thank you for having the kahones to do that :) Jaqie Fox 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Praecereus

My apologies. I did indeed overlook your message. You'll find the article text at User:Rkitko/Praecereus. -- Longhair\^talk 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)