User talk:Smartse/archive 3

Fair use images

Hi, Smartse! I'd like to remind you that non-free images should not be used outside the intended articles. Thus, I think you should replace any such images with plain links in User:Smartse/gallery. Thanks, Quibik (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the note Smartse (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

10k!

Congratulations on your 10,000th edit! You've been eligible to upgrade your Experienced Editor badge for a while, you know. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Smartse. I replied to you Bacillus thuringiensis question on my talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, I replied to the user dispute issue. Pharaway (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK

The article is currently in preparation area 2. Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. Joe Chill (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

EInsiders & Pharaway

There is a reply and also the numbers on the amount of EInsdiers cites is way off. </ Here is a link that just shows some of them and it is substantially more.Pharaway (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In further investigating how much EInsiders has been used on Wiki especially in regards to the .jpg photos, it looks like Wiki is actually pulling bandwidth from Einsiders for those photos some of which go back to 2002. Is this correct? Wiki is actually stealing bandwidth from EInsiders but won't allow EInsiders to be used as a reliable source???

I've sent an email to EInsider's editor informing them of the photo theft from their site. Pharaway (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Smartse, I copied this last post by Pharaway over to their talk page, where it can be continued. Despite it's irrelevancy to Pharaway's citation spamming. 842U (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Pharaway#Pharaway:_reference_spam_warning Smartse (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse,

I have just edited my response on Pharaway's Talk page - it was worded accidentally in a way where it's entirety was directed at you incorrectly (didnt see your sig in the response until after I saved mine). My apologies if you caught the original post before I fixed it.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems, it was directed at both of you equally, it just seemed like the discussion was moving towards legal a argument which is never a good idea. Thanks for explaining the copyright issues using your knowledge by the way. Smartse (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

NAMOS BC

Hi Smartse - sure you can go ahead and delete NAMOS BC. I made that article when I first came onto wikipedia and didn't know much about it. However, I should say that NAMOS BC is going to more recognized in the next few years - we just landed some large grants and will be putting out several publications. Perhaps in a few more years it might be worthy of a wiki page.02:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bacillus thuringiensis

Hi Smartse,please find the reply to AIRcorn's action on Bacillus thuringiensis article: Hi AIRcorn. I found time for reply.Sorry for delay.First of all it is very strange to me ,that you "now is writing a report at the moment about Bt and other pesticides " have been use only Google Scholar as a source for evaluation of scholarly research contribution to the academic field for Zakharyan R.A. For this you should be alredy familiar with the subject or go to original articles published by prominent scientists. Articles : Zakharyan R.A.et al. Possible role of extrachromosomal DNA in the formation of the isecticidal endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Inst.Exp. Bol., Yerevan,USSR. Doklady Akademii Nauk Armyanskoi SSR (1976), 63(1), 42-47. CODEN: DANAAW ISSN: 0321-1339.Journal written in Russian. CAN 86:68301 CAPLUS (Copyright 2003 ACS). Zakharyan R.A. "Study of plasmids and specific endonucleases of Bacillus thuringiensis". Genet. Actinomitsetov i Batsill. Sb. Dokl. Sovet.- American Konf., Erevan (1977), 249-252. From: Ref.Zh., Biol.Khim. 1979,Abstr. No. 17Kh102. Journal written in Russian. CAN 91: 207298 AN 1979:607298 CAPLUS (Copyright 2003 ACS) and Zakharyan R.A et al.(1979). "Plasmid DNA from Bacillus thuringiensis".(USSR) Microbiologiya 48 (2): 226–229. ISSN 0026-3656. became available in international circulation to the world scientific community already in 1976-79. See example of citations in next selected articles,writed by prominent scientists and listed below,: Clayton C. Beegle and Takhashi Yamamoto (1992).Review. "INVITATION PAPER ( C. P. ALEXANDER FUND) : History of Bacillus thuringiensis berliner research and development". Canadian Entomologist 124: 587–616. doi:10.4039/Ent124587-4(1992). Dean D.H. ( October 1984).Review."Biochemical Genetics of the Bacterial Insect-Control Agent Bacillus thuringiensis:Basic Principles and Prospects for Genetic Engineering". Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews-vol.2,341-363. XU Jian, LIU Qin, YIN Xiang-dong and ZHU Shu-de (2006). "A review of recent development of Bacillus thuringiensis ICP genetically engineered microbes". Entomological Journal of East China 15 (1): 53–58. R. LANDEN, A. HEIERSON AND H. G. BOMAN, A Phage for Generalized Transduction in Bacillus thuringiensis and Mapping of Four Genes for Antibiotic Resistance .Journal of General Microbiology (198 l), 123,49-59. Printed in Great Britain . N. Shivarova 1 *, W. Förster 1 2, H.-E. Jacob 1 2, R. Grigorova 1 2 Microbiological implications of electric field effects VII. Stimulation of plasmid transformation of Bacillus cereus protoplasts by electric field pulses . Z Allg Mikrobiol.1983, v. 23(9),595-599. V.I. Miteva, N.I. Shivarova and R.T. Grigorova(1981)Transformation of Bacillus thuringiensis protoplasts by plasmid DNA. FEMS Microbiology Letters 12 (1981) 253-256 253. KAZUNORI ABE, ROBERT M. FAUST , LEE A. BULLA, JR.t ,"Plasmid Deoxyribonucleic Acid in Strains of Bacillus sphaericus and in Bacillus moritai’ "JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY 41,328-335(1983). Karabekov B.P. et al.1982. Transmissible genetic factors in Bac. thuringiensis:reasons for difference in some biochemical properties in wild type strains of Bac. thuringiensis var. gallerea. Genetika(USSR) 18,1069-68. Ambartsumian N.S. et al.1987 "Comparative characterisation of extrachromosomal DNA of Bac.thuringiensis serotype H-14 strains.Microbiologiya (USSR) 56,243-48.

Zakharyan's articles are referenced ("not in some books"- as you presented to Smartse), but , as you found in GOOGLE-books, referenced by world recognised scienists with outstanding contributions in science, including 6 what I have known before: In :"Fermentation process development of industrial organisms", 1989, ISBN 0-8247-7917-7 . Edited by Justin O. Neway. Marcel Dekker INC. N.Y.(Zakharyan R.A. et al.1979). In :"Advances in microbial control of insect pests", 2003, ISBN 0-306-47491-3. Edited by R. K. Upadhyay.Kluver Academy Plenum Publisher.N.Y. ( Zakharyan R.A. 1976). In :Pathogens of invertebrates: application in biological control and ...‎ - Page 159 Thomas Clement Cheng, Society for Invertebrate Pathology. Meeting - Science - 1984 - 278 pages,(Zakharyan R.A.et al. 1976,They later isolated three plasmids from B. thuringiensis var. caucasicus.Zakharyan et al. , 1979). In :Revista biología, Volumes 12-14‎ - Page 84 Universidad de La Habana. Facultad de Biología - Science,El primer trabajo que demuestra la presencia de plásmidos en Bacillus Thuringiensis data de 1976 (Zakharyan 1976) ya partir de ahí, ... In: Bioprocess engineering: the first generation‎ - Page 290 Tarun K. Ghose - Science - 1989 - 389 pages.(Zakharyan R.A.et al. 1976) In: The Molecular biology of the bacilli, Volume 2 ‎David A. Dubnau - Science - 1985 - 259 pages(Zakharyan R.A.et al. 1976,1979) . In 2003 Zakharyan's 1976 paper was referenced in book edited by R.K. Upadhyay(see above). In 2006 Zakharyan"s 1976 paper was referenced in Review : Entomological Journal of East CHINA:XU Jian, LIU Qin, YIN Xiang-dong and ZHU Shu-de (2006). "A review of recent development of Bacillus thuringiensis ICP genetically engineered microbes". Entomological Journal of East China 15 (1): 53–58..

AIRcorn, Now read what are saying in scientific press scientist with the outstanding contribution in the BT, Dean D.H. , Clayton C. Beegle , Takhashi Yamamoto in their review articles about Zakharyan's 1976,1979 work and discovery (see above):exact the words and phrase that you have removed from text and articles from references:"Zakharyan R. A.(1976,1979) first reported the presence of plasmids in B.thuringiensis and suggested involvement of the plasmids in endospore/crystal formation,also described the presence of large plasmid in Cry+ variant of B.thuringiensis."; and also look XU Jian et al. article(2006)(Zakharyan R.A. 1976); and other authors. Zakharyan's name has been presented among names of 26 scientists evalueted with landmark work in Bt. since 1901( I.S.Ishiwata's discovery). So,the information that you have and provided to Smartse" that information to you comes up very little and that paper(you presented just only one, Landen R et al.) does mention him (Zakharyan) also mentions others" and other statements are irrelevant, and the statement mentionet by you to Smartse that"His 1979 paper seems to be the most cited" and only "can be used as a reference" also irrelevant and I am sure because of lack of good information. The discovery of plasmids in Bt and experimental evidence suggested involvement of the plasmids in endospore /crystal formation by Zakharyan R.A. was followed by intensive research to characterise plasmids and determine their role in Bt-endotoxin production, followed by growing Bt -recombinant technology and industry.In this way remarkable and outstanding work was done by J. Gonsales ,H.E.Schnepf and H.R.Whiteley. And one more,articles in Wikipedia to be more encyclopedic should include names and even photo of#1 contributors in the field.I am looking forward to see new version of your article asap.Erkad,talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkad (talk • contribs) 04:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the parts I believe relevant to me over to my talk page AIRcorn (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at TheJazzDalek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at User_talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#Confusion_over_wikiproject_message.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Okip 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mephedrone

Hi, the source for the "yellowish colour" is a news article. News articles can be very inaccurate, especially when it comes to little-known chemical substances. I am aware of not including personal experiences in Wikipedia, but can news articles be considered a credible source for data like that? News articles called mephedrone a "plant food", which it is not. There are many other inaccuracies in such articles, and some could lead to potential harm.

There's also the simple fact that mephedrone is a chemical substance with a specific formula, and as such it can only have one colour in its normal state. Take, for example, sugar. You can buy brown sugar, but you're well aware that pure sucrose is white.

I will try to find a credible source for mephedrone's appearance, but I'd also would like you to be aware that the reason for my edit was accuracy and prevention of possible harm. If someone thinks that yellow or brown mephedrone is how it's supposed to be, they will be poisoning their system with impurities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildespace (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I know news articles can be very inaccurate and as someone interested in plants the "plant food" name really pisses me off - I just saw an article titled "mephedrone: from plant food to killer"! Unfortunately news articles are pretty much all we have to go on at the moment as there is so little info about it. As you've queried this though I'll remove the yellowish from the article. I also see your point about reducing possible harm - it is crazy that the article here should be where people can find the most info about it! Smartse (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look through other references in the Mephedrone article, and there's plenty of references to it being a white rather than any other colour. For example, http://www.lifelineproject.co.uk/docs/M-cat%20report%20small.pdf And it comes from some sort of research, as opposed to a news article. I rest my case :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildespace (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fedexia

Thanks, but I've already nominated Fedexia for DYK. Maybe you didn't notice because it's already in the queue. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind...

Checking the Shlomo Sawilowsky when you come back online? It has gone trough a rather radical cutdown and seeing you were involved earlier i think you may be interested. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been watching it happen and am pretty confused. I saw a post at WP:COIN and started to tidy the article up after pretty clear COI editing to make it more compliant with WP:NOR and WP:V. The IP obviously didn't like me questioning whether they are notable or not and seems to have taken it to heart. I don't know anything (and can't find anything) about the guy so can't really say whether the article is good or not. I think it is best to leave it for today, I'll let someone who edited it previously know what's been going on and see what they think. Smartse (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (TAVB)

Smartse: thank you for your interest in TAVB. I have made some additions to the project and was hoping you could give me more specifics comment for improving content and ratings, if you have time. my apologies if I didn't post this request in the correct place. regards, Doncorto (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Meetup in Cambridge, 27 March

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DVLA

Can you stop changing the DVLA page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symzie (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are the same person as was editing from 194.202.213.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Your edits were unsourced and you simply can't call something fascist and authoritarian without a source. I've added some information regarding the adverts and written it in a neutral way. Smartse (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Photoinhibition

Hi Smartse. The review of Photoinhibition is done and the article is 'on hold' for improvements before passing. I look forward to working with you and anyone else to take care of the improvements needed. Happy editing! Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that after further investigation, I've had to change my mind about the further impacts of photoinhibition add some more things to work on. Diderot's dreams (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it, I'll try to get round to sorting the article out this week. Smartse (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There hasn't been any work on the photoinhabition article in 10 days or so, I was wondering what was up. If there is something that you guys need assitance with or don't understand or don't agree with in the review please bring it to my attention so we can discuss. Thanks! Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry been a bit busy recently. I realised that it actually needs more work than I thought, it should have a lot more on the ecological consequences of it and it should also cover dynamic photoinhibition more than it currently does to. I'm going to have to go on a wikibreak for a while as I need to get some work done so I can't sort it out at the moment. I think it's best just to fail it and I'll try and improve it in a few months. If I do then I assume it will be ok to let you know and see if it meets GA standards. Smartse (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll close the review. At first glance, it looked to me, too, that the article covered the topic enough. But these breadth issues come up a lot in GA reviews, if the reviewer or someone else explores the topic. I'd be happy to take a look again and comment; protocol requires it will have to go through the GA noms again and I can't guarantee I will pick it up for formal review. But good luck and I'm sure the article can ultimately be passed. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Biogeochemical illustrations

Oxygen cycle

Hi, I see on the mediawiki you were asking for illustrators to help out with svg versions of biogeochemical illustration. If you still want someone let me know. I've started of with one as an appetiser :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am still looking for someone to make them. Thanks for doing the oxygen one, it would be nice if the amounts of each store and the size of each flux could be included. Could this be done if I can find a source? Smartse (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind I don't have any particular knowledge of biogeochemisty, but if you tell me what you want in the diagrams, or examples of what you would like then please let me know. Also if you want any edits doing for existing images then the same goes for that too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at the moment but will hopefully be able to find some good sources in a few months. This is a great source for the nitrogen cycle though. Smartse (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Strewth, if I understood it I may be able to do a version that doesn't infringe their copyright. It's going to take some digesting. I know bugger all about this topic so aren't really sure what has to be in their and what I can leave out. I'll have think and see what I can come up with. It may well take those few months you refer to :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what stopped me trying to have a go at it! Annoyingly I can't really see how it can be simplified.... maybe I should ask the author if they can release it under GFDL. Let me know if you start on it and want me to have a look. Smartse (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it. If I can figure out what it's actually saying then I may be able to come up with something that says the same thing but in a different way. A visual paraphrase as it were. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sevan Aydinian

hi, sevan aydinian 's page has been cleaned up. what's not verifiable? it even has links directly to mtv.com

HELLO? Are you going to adhere to the rules?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New Creation Church

Hi. I remembered you were involved in editing New Creation Church in Singapore a few months ago. Recently some new editors have been removing contents by the chunk since at the moment, there's hardly anyone to monitor what these editors are doing. I agree where you drawn the line last time but now I don't think these new editors were as careful in deciding what to remove. Their focus seems to be on removing contents especially on negative things about the church rather than adding contents giving me the impression that they could possibly be followers of the church. If you have some spare time, I would appreciate if you could monitor what they're up to as you're a pretty experienced editor. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.43.58.221 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wildcat Mountain

Thanks for the heads up on my archive numbers and for the tweak of the WMSP hook. It's better than what I added. Have a great day! --Dincher (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK requirements

I think I read your comment on the Bo 46 DYK incorrectly. It seems you were not commenting on the hook, but on the article body?

If so, your comment is not correct. See section D2 of the DYK requirements. An inline is not required for all paras, and the section in question is paraphrased from the patents (click through, the entire first section of the patent is a discussion of the issues).

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was commenting on the article and not the hook - this is part of the normal DYK review process. D2 at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Onepage says "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." Where did you read a version that said one is not required? I've had a a look at the patent but can't seem to find the info in the background section. Parts like "For instance, if the helicopter is flying forward at 100 km/h, the advancing blades see 300 + 100 km/h = 400 km/h, and for the retreating ones its 300 - 100 km/h = 200 km/h." sound like you have written them based on your own knowledge rather than getting it from a source, making it original research, like I said at TDYK if this is incorrect, please add a source. Smartse (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there are a couple of separate issues here, so I'll try to separate them out:

Doing basic math is not OR, a well-discussed issue here on the Wiki. As you can see in the patent, the concepts of drag, wave drag and stall points are all talked about at some length (longer than the article). All I have done is put numbers to it to illustrate it. If you see statements that you believe are not discussed in the patent, feel free to list them and I can trivially provide additional cites (this basic discussion is in every book on rotorcraft dynamics).

As to the references, I believe you are confusing "rule of thumb" with "requirement". There is no "requirement" for a cite-per-para anywhere. No really, look around, it's not even part of the CITE guidelines.

Yet clearly there's something wrong with the wording, because this issue comes up over and over again. Here's a recent example: this thread. This one has some clear statements of fact in it, like "It's a convient guideline, but not a strict rule here at DYK". Don't get me wrong; there is a strong sub-current to make the rules more stringent, but they always fail. It failed to carry in that thread for instance, with strong statements along the lines that DYK should not be more difficult to get than a GA, or there would be no DYK's any more.

Now that leads to the obvious question: if D2 is so confusing, why don't we re-word it? Great idea! But the bureaucracy is so strong that changes to make the wording more clear appear to be close to impossible to get consensus on. If you wish to re-open the debate, this is the place to do so. But you might want to don your flame retardant suit first! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok whatever, I'm not happy to pass the article, but we can see what others think. IMO everything should be cited - how do we know if it is verifiable if it isn't? Maybe I'm a bit of a hardliner on that point. GA requires a relatively complete article, whereas DYK doesn't, that seems to be the main difference to me - the DYKs I've written are fully cited, but not really complete. I'll drop a note at TDYK to ask someone else to have a look. Smartse (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor this, but you noted above your distinction between B and DYK.

The original purpose of the DYK was to encourage the creation of new articles through a sort of mini-reward -- after all, there's nothing like seeing your article on the front page. The rules were deliberately written to be as lightweight and inclusive as possible, in order to meet that goal. Every new rule that's been added makes it harder for DYK's to pass, makes the process more adversarial, and reduces the relative reward. It seems this goal is being lost over time.

For instance, consider D2 on the rules page vs. [rules|what should be the same rules] on another page (hoping the link works). It's a bit up in the air.

I would welcome a re-start of the discussion, but with one caveat: perhaps we could get D2 to reflect B-status levels, or agree that if consensus could not be reached on that change, that D2 should be changed to clearly state the current rule as at the link above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Purves references

Thank you. The references are from a report to be submitted to the Lepidopterist Society of Africa on the life cycle of Sevenia boisduvali boisduvali. The butterfly drinking cranberry and apple juice can be seen in the photo with author Purves, M. The reference to two female flowers in Sclerocroton integerrimus was observed on 3 inflorecences (none were seen with only one) and pictures were taken (still to be uploaded). Richard Boon (a tree book editor) confirmed the tree as being Sclerocroton integerrimus. I felt in important to note that there could be two female flowers and not just one as stated in the Justor link, if you can find a documented reference to two female flowers - please replace the Purves reference. I have also redone the description on the fruit, please see if you can however put septicidally dehiscent into 3 bivalved cocci into more simplified English... and also please check the references again - I had trouble combining some of them. I still have more photos to upload for Sclerocroton integerrimus. Michaelwild (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok I see why I couldn't find anything about it yet then! Because it hasn't been published yet the information should probably be removed - our guideline on reliable sourcing says that things should be published before they are used - otherwise it may be original research which is forbidden. Seeming as the information referenced is minor, this seems like the most sensible thing to do, then once it has been published, we can add it back into the articles. I'll wait to see what you think before doing anything though.

I don't think "septicidally dehiscent into 3 bivalved cocci" can be put more simply unfortunately, botanical nomenclature often needs to be complicated to explain what the flower is like. I've redone the references - for future reference, change <ref> to <ref name=XXXXX> at the start of the reference and then add <ref name=XXXXX/> wherever you want to cite the same source. Smartse (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the information can be removed - the info and 'evidence' is there in the pictures (for the butterfly at least - flower picture still to be uploaded). As for the combining of references - I think I left out the /. Thanks for the help.

How about "the fruit opens by splitting into three roughly circular parts"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed it. Smartse (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Smartse, thanks very much for your help with my quest to update a load of links. I was beginning to tire of the repetitive work but your help has made it much easier! Correctaboot (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Systemin

Hello! Your submission of Systemin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AngChenrui (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You can contact me at my talk page if I don't reply anytime soon on the DYK nomination page. Cheers, AngChenrui (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, I've replied at T:TDYK. Smartse (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shrewsbury Hoard

Hello! Your submission of Shrewsbury Hoard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Alf-howard fair use.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Alf-howard fair use.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that photographs of people who have died are considered to be fair use. I've added a rationale to the image but if it is not sufficient then please go ahead and delete the file. Smartse (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Freudian slip?

At the COI noticeboard, you told a spammer, "there is always going to be a recipe for making Mexican shilled eggs, even if you stop maintaining your site." Thanks for the smile. --CliffC (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

References in Light front holography

Smartse, thank you for your suggestion. References have been added to the first two paragraphs. Indeed a more comprehensive list of references was added in the previous update.

Regards, asterix --Conjecturix (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Anogramma ascensionis DYK

Hi Smartse, I tried adding you as a second contributor at the DYK page, but couldn't figure out how to do it without using the template. Feel free to add yourself on my behalf, since I'll be away from Wikipedia for some days and won't have time to figure it out. The addition of the image is a big plus. The one odd thing is the confusion around when Hooker described the plant. It really looks like Kew and BBC got it wrong. IPNI, which typically has the last word on these things, says 1854.[1] That's the date that his official description was published and recorded, even though he had the specimen in hand during his visit in 1843 (which is why I re-phrased it in the article: "then described and named by Joseph Dalton Hooker after a visit he made to the island in 1843"). Interesting story, including the story about Hooker's own part in making 'his' plant almost extinct (couldn't quite phrase it that way, though!). Thanks, First Light (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added myself. Re the original discovery - the Kew press release says it was described as being fairly common in 1876 when Hooker visited - but doesn't actually say when it was first described. Cronk tried to find it multiple times, so I think it's sensible to assume that what he wrote in his 1980 paper is accurate. I think Hooker's part in making it extinct is unfortunately repeated around the world - have you heard of the acclimatisation societies? Smartse (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there are many such 'societies', the British Empire in this case :-). What makes this really unusual, and perhaps singular, is that Hooker himself was likely responsible for the (now) near-extinction of a plant that he was credited with naming and describing. First Light (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Rulingia dasyphylla DYK

Hi. Given that I have edited the article Rulingia dasyphylla to ref the hook, could you okay the nomination Articles created/expanded on July 17(assuming you agree it is okay) so there is no appearance of conflict of interest? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Miniter

The material that you've repeatedly reinserted to Richard Miniter is a very clear BLP violation- it makes a very controversial, defamatory statement about a living person and is very poorly sourced. I've fully protected the article for 24 hours and removed the BLP violation, which I will delete from the history. Please pay attention to what you revert and restore- if you re-add that without iron-clad sourcing, you'll be blocked. Imagine if you were the subject and that were written about you- aside from the defamation case waiting to happen, BLP is strict to imagine the real harm that can do to the subject and their reputation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the extremely late reply. BLPs aren't my speciality and I will pay more attention in the future. I wasn't aware when reverting that mediabistro was a blog site and had assumed incorrectly that it was an RS. Since I thought that it was, I thought it was suitable as a source, since the text made it clear it was an allegation. You might want to use oversight again since someone keeps on inserting it and also semi-protect it to stop it for a while. Smartse (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Improving Josh and the Empty Pockets

Thanks for improving Josh and the Empty Pockets. Can't argue with any of your pruning or deletions. Goes to show there's a reason for Wikipedia having guidlines about close relationships and the need to avoid COI edits. When you have a COI it's hard to remain unbiased.

Thanks again, Smartse, for taking the time. Ludasaphire (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the articles still need a bit of cleaning up, mainly to make sure everything is based on third party reliable sources. I'll hopefully get round to it soon, but as the others have said, in general the COI issues are minimal. Smartse (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was my first article. Re-reading some of it now...well, slightly embarasing. But I think my editing and sourcing have improved over time with the articles and edits I've been making since then. My guess is that the David Spero article will need less pruning, but we'll see.Ludasaphire (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you please check Slavic names for DYK?

Thanks a lot in advance

Wojgniew (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look but it doesn't look suitable for DYK at present. Take a look at WP:DYK for a detailed explanation of what's required. Smartse (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about DYK for Solomon curve

Sorry to bother you again, especially because I know you have more pruning work to do on Josh and the Empty Pockets, but in looking on your page I learned about the DYK process for the first time. In reading about the process, it looks like anyone can nominate something interesting for a DYK. I was thinking I might do this for the fact in the Solomon curve article "that the greater the difference between a driver’s speed and the average speed of traffic – not just above but also below that average speed – the greater the likelihood of involvement in a crash" but, since I have a COI I'm thinking that wouldn't be appropriate. Am I right that I really shouldn't nominate an article I wrote, particularly when I'm related to the subject? Thanks for any guidance.Ludasaphire (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I just read the bit about "articles that have been created, or expanded fivefold or more, within the last 5 days" and, clearly, this was a long time ago. But, for future reference, I'd appreciate your thoughts both on whether this would have been an appropriate "hook" (or whatever we call it) and if it would be OK for me to have nominated it. Ludasaphire (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries about asking, it would have been fine to have included when it was a new article as far as I can see. Basically articles need to be well referenced and 1500 characters long to be included. The hook needs to contain the article name, so it would need to be something like ... that the Solomon curve shows that he greater the difference between a driver’s speed and the average speed of traffic, the greater the likelihood of involvement in a crash? If you start a new article and want to consider using it for DYK, maybe make it is a user page like User:Ludasaphire/New article and get it up to standard before moving it to mainspace, I'd be happy to take a look over it for you. Ideally it would be about a subject you are unrelated to, but looking at your other articles, you seem to be a rare example of someone who can write from a NPOV even if you are somewhat connected to the subject. Smartse (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Makes me want to find a good topic to write a new article about.Ludasaphire (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)