On 4 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marsileaceae, 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.

— ERcheck ( talk) 13:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This is regarding your proposal to merge fruiting body into sporocarp. There's been a bunch of low-level and scattered discussion as to what to do with the articles fruiting body, sporocarp, basidiocarp, and ascocarp. I have a comprehensive plan for these articles at Talk:Sporocarp. Have a look at this proposal and weigh in on it if you have an opinion. Peter G Werner 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am an admin on Wiktionary and am wondering whether you could help with a couple of questions about Indonesian translation. In particular, could you provide good Indonesian translations for the various definitions of listen? (See the sample sentences there for more information.) Also, I am looking for the Indonesian word for minute, in the sense of "a unit of time" or "sixty seconds". Could you help?

Of course, I would like to help. But I do not have access to internet much nowadays, so sometimes it could be a hassle if I want to translate something or even provide any articles to wikipedia, I hope you'd understand. But please, don't hesitate to ask. HoneyBee 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am an admin on Wiktionary and am wondering whether you could help with a couple of questions about Indonesian translation. In particular, could you provide good Indonesian translations for the various definitions of listen? (See the sample sentences there for more information.) Also, I am looking for the Indonesian word for minute, in the sense of "a unit of time" or "sixty seconds". Could you help?

Of course, I would like to help. But I do not have access to internet much nowadays, so sometimes it could be a hassle if I want to translate something or even provide any articles to wikipedia, I hope you'd understand. But please, don't hesitate to ask. HoneyBee 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed that you left a comment at the embryo discussion page. I'm curious. You say that the term "embryology" is usually restricted to apply to early vertebrate development, whereas an "embryo" is a life cycle stage found in all animals, land plants, and some algae and protists. Do you have any cite for this distinction? I had never heard of such a distinction before.

There are quite a few books and articles about "vertebrate embryology", but there are also plenty of books and articles about "invertebrate embryology". Ferrylodge 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment at my talk page. I'm a bit confused, though. You said, "the majority of books titled 'Embryology' treat only vertebrate embryology (and sea urchins)." You also said: "when biologists talk about 'the embryo' they almost always imply vertebrate embryo."

So, haven't you said that both the terms "embryology" and "embryo" are almost always used in reference to vertebrates? Ergo, don't the two terms have the same scope? They both usually refer to vertebrates, but sometimes refer to invertebrates too, right? Ferrylodge 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your further message. I hope you'll reconsider whether it's okay to merge embryology into embryo. By analogy, fetology redirects to fetus, and I think embryology should likewise redirect to embryo. It seems to me that having the embryology article separate from the embryo article will lead to a great deal of redundant material in both articles, while also giving a confusing impression that embryology means something other than the study of embryos. Thanks again. Ferrylodge 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Blocking me at wiktionary for only "adding a internal link to a header" for a week is a little extreme. Will you please unblock me from wiktionary? The block makes no sense at all. I thought I was doing a job I thought I could not get blocked for doing but I guess I was wrong:) I am going to look over the policies and guidlines of the place before editing more. Again unblock me. Have a nice week and god bless:) -- James, La gloria è a dio 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You did not make just one bad edit, but began a rapid series of them. You have been warned repeatedly about your behavior and edits and have been blocked previously. This block period matches your previous one, rather than extending longer, which is lenient by Wiktionary policy. You have had plenty of time to learn proper formatting, but began a series of bad edits. We don't link every word in every header. We generally don't link part of speech headers. We don't link names of common languages in headers or translation sections. Wiktionary does not have the man-power to clean up after people who begin linking every word on the page. Please look around at some of the model pages for proper formatting before you begin editing again. -- EncycloPetey 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I would like to know why you feel this image actually belongs, aside from the very minor fact that the ant is walking on moss. It does not demonstrate moss very accurately as 95% of the moss in the picture is completely out of focus, and the subject of the photo is quite clearly the ant.

Please consider these before restoring images that are not representative of the article they are placed in. Just because Fir0002 makes some darn nice images does not mean their pics are above Wikipedia guidelines.

I personally believe that it does not belong. If you disagree, bring it up on the talk page of the Moss article, don't just revert my edit. Thank you. -- KirinX 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You supported The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just so you know, you are very close to violating 3RR on Moss [1] [2] [3], please stop reverting peoples edits for a day or so. It is fine to revert somebody, but not over and over, there is a discussion on the talk page about the image. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know there is a discussion on the Talk page. If you look, you'll see that I started that discussion. -- EncycloPetey 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed. But discussing is the first step, it is also important to let that discussion come to a conclusion. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And yet two people began deleting content from the page without starting such a discussion. Once the discussion was started, the content was deleted again so that others would not see the issue being discussed. Hypocritical, no? -- EncycloPetey 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry for my late response, I thought we were done. No, not hypocritical, the image is available in the history. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear EncycloPetey, Thank you for the posting in my userpage...I am travelling now, I will be back to my home tomorrow...Though I added Parrot and Listen sections (I have yet to learn to add Malayalam fonts to Wiktionary), units of time put me in a dilemma, because Malayalm units of time doesn't follow the seconds-minute-hour pattern. Even though we can say "nazhika" means seconds, it is not...The Malayalam units of time, like nazhika, vinazhika and phases of time like yāma have their own units of time. I will try to get more reference and information about the subject before adding information to the Units of Time, thank you so much for the mail. Best wishes, -- Cyril Thomas 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Dear EncycloPetey, Thanks for the info. I will check the Malayalam fonts, and try to update it. --Κυριλλος ( Cyril Thomas 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

Misplaced article removed from talk page

Hello! I'm a Wiktionary administrator who's glad to see you're still active in Wikimedia. We're in the proces of clearing out the last 50 images and audio files on Wiktionary, and moving them all to Commons. Long, long ago (Jan 2004), you uploaded a couple of images on Wiktionary. Would you mind uploading these two to Commons?

• wikt:Image:Bang_icon_32x32.jpg
• wikt:Image:Smile_icon_32x32.jpg

When you do, please let me know so I may delete the versions on Wiktionary without losing any information. Also, if the file names have to change, please let me know what the new names are. I'd do this myself except that Commons has no migration tool that accomodates Wiktionary, so the image would appear under my name rather than yours, and I don't wish to take credit for your work. Thanks, -- EncycloPetey 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

These icons have been uploaded to Commons, but as .png images. The references to them on the 3 pages of Wiktionary that used them have been edited to use the PNG images from Commons. The JPGs on Wiktionary may now be deleted. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 07:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Noting that you were trying to remove those images from Wiktionary, I went back to check (by clicking on that link) and they are removed. It shows a link saying that they are missing, you could upload them (which is correct). So I figured, since you don't want any more uploads to Wiktionary (it does make more sense to use Commons) I'd see what happens. Using that link indicates that the page is restricted to sysops, which in this case is valid. But I felt that the PHP source of the page should be edited so that rather than just blandly saying it's a restricted page, it should also say that uploads should be directed to Wikimedia Commons, and have a link to the upload page there.

I was going to suggest this on Wiktionary, so I went to the main page, then went to the discussion page for the main page and discovered someone has locked the discussion page too! While I can understand locking the main page (and it's unfortunate, I was the one who thought up the Quick Index that appears there; if it had been locked at that time I couldn't have done it), I think it doesn't make sense to lock the discussion page, and I recommend the discussion page for the main page on Wikitionary be unlocked. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 07:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have discovered that since I wrote this, that page is now unlocked. Don't know if it was you who unlocked or some other administrator had temporarily locked it and then unlocked it, but if you did, thanks! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

We've had a lot of recent vandalism edits to the Main page talk. I didn't lock (or unlock) it myself, but I can understand why it might be locked against unregistered users. Most general conversation now happens in one of the four community fora, all available from the left side of the page. -- EncycloPetey 08:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have removed the offending link on this page. - Andre Engels 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the improved fountain! — Tamfang 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Phaeoceros_spores.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. 11:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Mr. EncycloPetey:

I recently learn that you had put a block on my account for the copyright violation an on-line web based dictionary. I understand this is serious and have just now found a way to contact you. The addition of copyrighted material was a mistake. Not to sound like I am trying to excuse it but it was very innocent. When I work on dictionary entries I typically copy the contents into Notepad, fill in the changes and than recopy it into the text area after I am finished. I found the parole definition wanting so I went to look at various definitions in other sources to make sure that the stated definition was correct. I placed a copy of one definition in place of the Wiktionary definitions as a reference, so that I don't have to keep flipping back and for between pages. When the storm hit, I quickly copied and pasted the translations that I had been working on, onto the same page as the copied definition. When the Internet finally came back on a few moments later, I quickly pasted all of the contents of the Notepad into the text area and saved it so that I wouldn't have to retype all of my translations. I forgot that the copied definition was still there. I was unaware that I had pasted copyrighted material until you brought it to my attention. I really am sorry and I do promise to be more circumspect next time, but I honestly didn't mean to put banned material onto the website. How would that benefit me? I hope that you will let me continue to contribute to Wiktionary and remove the block. I will change my editing habits in the future. Sincerely, Andy85719 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

That does not seem a plausible explanation to me, since the exact same copyvio definition was shortly before entered by an anoother user, resulting in a reversion and block on that account. Nor does it explain why other pages you have edited suffer from the same copyright violation issue. You had been previously warned about suspicious entry additions on your part. You will have to wait until the block has ended to continue contributing, and be sure not to copy definitions or translations from dictionaries again. Neither definitions nor translations may ever be taken from copyrighted materials and added to Wiktionary. -- EncycloPetey 03:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Mr. EncycloPetey:

I feel aggrieved. After posting a warning and giving me a 3 day block, you have taken it upon yourself to block my access for an indefinite period of time alleging copyright violations. You have accused me of lying about events in the past and of committing systematic copyright violations. In a way I feel that I am being bullied. I am sure that you are a reasonable person and can understand that I, as a newcomer to the wiktionary site, wasn't aware that single words were copyrighted. I also didn't know that you couldn't use other Wikipedia pages to get translations for words. I assure you that in no way did I intend to violate copyright law. Please do not penalize me so severely. You point to warnings, though the only ones I received were one's about "awkward" translations and switching Mandarin with Chinese. I am extremely sorry for the mishap with parole but I truly had no intention of breaking the law. Though you may choose not to believe it, the storm did cut my Internet off and the events occurred as I explained. I am on my summer vacation, and have very little to do. I don't see how blocking me indefinitely before telling me that what I was doing was wrong is a good remedy at all. I would happily take the three day suspension but an indefinite block seems unreasonable. As a sysops, isn't it your duty to teach newcomers on the appropriate manners of contributing, rather than punish them when they slip up, especially considering that you yourself are a teacher. I hope you will be moved to change your mind. Sincerely, Andy85719 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The extended block was only made after additional investigation and consultation with another sysop. We found that this was not an isolated incident on your part. You had inserted copyrighted material from on-line source into several articles over an extended period covering several days, not a single article accidentally as a result of storm issues. This means that you have not only violated copyright law, but that you have falsely claimed otherwise. You should know that information displayed on copyrighted websites is in fact copyrighted. Your persisted claim that the problem was powerloss from a storm is flatly untrue. You are blocked. -- EncycloPetey 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article plant morphology, 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice work! Richard001 22:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

On 22 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Takakia, 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.

Hi; sorry it's been a while since I last updated DYK and it looks like I made a bit of a mess with the nominator templates; fixed now. DYK gets updated around every 6 hours, so feel free to submit as many good new or recently expanded articles as you can muster.-- Peta 00:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Lists, as you requested. The lists were all generated by category intersections using AWB. Let me know if your spot-checks turn up anything out of place. Cheers, -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You made changes to Dianella tasmanica's taxobox.. I haven't checked them, but if your changes are correct then they need to made to Dianella too. — Pengo —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:41, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. There are an enormous number of monocot pages whose taxobox will need checking. Some of them follow the Cronwuist system, some follow APG II, and some of them don't seem to follow either. The placement in the Hemerocallidaceae is based on Dahlgren's The Families of the Monocotyledons. -- EncycloPetey 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

That was quick :-)) I'll agree Anise is a "lowish B" - I did think a bit about it, but came to the conclusion that it's definitely better than a Start, the criteria for B-ness aren't that high :

"Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)."

Sure there's "some gaps" on the botany side, it's a way from GA-ness, but hiving off some of the introduction and expanding it a bit would solve that. I was in the middle of a post to the Plants Talk page that might clarify what I was up to ;-/ Cheers FlagSteward 23:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

But it doesn't have "a majority of material needed for a comprehensive article" in terms of coverage for WP:PLANTS, so I would rate it as "Start". -- EncycloPetey 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well we're getting into a debate about what a 'majority' is, aren't we? Personally I see it as over half way there, (but nothing like 90% there for instance), but am happy to let you call it. So I've dropped it to Start - it still means there's one less Stub in the world ;-/ FlagSteward 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You're doing an excellent job with the importance ratings, they're better than 99% right on target, in my opinion--some of the best ratings work on Wikipedia. I'm not going to rate my own articles for now on. KP Botany 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hm - interesting! I'd been told that the fossil ranges were not displaying in the right places, with some dinosaurs coming up as preCambrian. I've not had the chance to get on an apple so thought it would be better to remove the template until I'd tested it - although perhaps my meddling inadvertently fixed it by mistake! I'll take a look at it this evening and see what my browser makes of it, then possibly restore it. Thanks for the heads up!

Verisimilus  T 10:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Bio-star
		For your work on plant and related core articles, have this Bio Barnstar. Circeus 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You supported The Firm (novel), which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey bud, any thoughts on this one? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you mean. I've added a little information, cited a reference, and converted the stub to {{ bacteria-stub}}. Is that the sort of thing you meant? I could probably find more information if I had the time, but htings are very busy for me this week. -- EncycloPetey 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. [4] I did not think they would just be on UCMP, but of course they would be. KP Botany 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

UCMP is the official repository for key fossils in the state of California. They've even absorbed the the LA County Museum's paleobotanical collections. I actually spent time at UCMP helping to catalog their paleobotanical type specimens and getting the taxonomy of the specimen database filled out. (Before that, you could only search the database by genus, which wasn't very useful if you were looking for all the specimens in a particualr family or order.) I have a number of photos from Axelrod's collections, but am not certain whether I have the rights to scan and upload them. I'll do so if UCMP gives me the green light, though I would have to find access to a slide scanner as well. -- EncycloPetey 04:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, can you explain the "Suborder:Incertae sedis" thing to me. I got that off of wikispecies, and just presumed it to be accurate. Cheers! Murderbike 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It just means that someone didn't know where it belongs. I've been updating the liverworts on Wikispecies, but haven't done the leafy liverworts yet. The "traditional" suborders aren't especially useful and have been overturned by more recent studies. In any case, the whole high-level classification will probably be overturned in the next few years now that there's a good whole-evidence phylogeny available. For now, I'm following the orders and suborders according to Schuster (as it's the most widely-used and familiar system), but with the updated division name, classes, families, and genera of Stotler & Crandall-Stotler (2000). I'd have followed the Stotler's complete taxonomy except that (1) no one is using it, and (2) it doesn't match any phylogenetic hypothesis that's been published. -- EncycloPetey 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hola

I've uploaded a photo of a flower that looks similar to the images of Calendulae already existin in Commons, but I don't know much of flowers. Might you identify it? Muchas gracias. -- Javierme 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I have no sources on plants of Spain. My experience is with liverworts and ferns, mostly. -- EncycloPetey 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For I much appreciated your work on Marchantiophyta, which was very helpful for my Taxonomy of the Flora exam. Aelwyn 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

As best as I can recall at this remove, I think the plan was to create a redirect from {{ Brytophta-stub}} to {{ Brytophte-stub}}, given that was the form used in the "source", the better to cope with the fuzziness of that application. But evidently I didn't, and also didn't double-check any of the edits in that particular short "batch" of edits. At any rate, operator error of some permutation. My bad. Alai 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice edits but... are you following me? ;-) (just kidding, I enjoy very much cooperating with others). SOLANUM caule inermi herbaceo foliis pinnatis incisis, racemis simplicibus means NIGHTSHADE, (with a) herbaceous stem without spines (=inermis), pinnate incised leaves, simple racemes. Is incised a word used for the shape of leaves in English? How should it be translated? And what about inermis, any more technical term than without spines? Is the translation worth including? Species in latin means type or kind, whether it was already used in a modern sense I don'know. And, BTW, what do you think about moving the discussion about Top priority stubs to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Collaboration, as I have proposed? All in all it was you who started it! Bye! Aelwyn 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I just happen to have put all 6 Top priority plant stubs on my Watchlist, so I saw your edit comment and had a go at tdying the English. I'd also some some preliminary looking in my personal library for additional information. I think there's a good deal more we could add to the article, but I don't have the details. I'll have to see about making a trip to Berkeley at some point so I can use their library.

Yes, incised can be used in English to describe the leaves. I'll have to check the OED for meanings of "species". I'm a sysop on Wiktionary, and their entry for species is definitely in need of work. I think moving collaboration discussion to the Collaboration page is a fine idea. -- EncycloPetey 15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It is wrong:"Ferns do not have cotyledons, but they have true leaves." Because true leaves is a botanical term. See cotyledon in [5], true leaves, true leaf, or true leaf -- Ricardo 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Ferns have leaves; you can see them yes? Ferns do not have cotyledons. If you can provide evidence that ferns have cotyledons, please cite a source. Every source you gave me says that cotyledons are found in seed plants, and ferns are not seed plants. -- EncycloPetey 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This search finds journal articles discussing "true leaves" in ferns. The UC Davis website is wrong. -- EncycloPetey 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you have some practical experience in plant propagation. However some plants, for example Fabaceae, have firstly two leaves (cotyledons leaves) very different to the others, which are typical compound leaves. Ferns have the same kind of leaves during all life, so this term can't be used by ferns because it is not meanigful. All ferns leaves are always "true leaves" because leaves of ferns have always the same shape. -- Ricardo 21:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, the term can be and is used meaningfully with ferns. Vascular plants have true leaves because the leaves contain vascular tissue, the leaf blade is divided into tissue layers, and the epidermis is penetrated by stomatal openings. Bryophytes lack vascular tissues, internal differentiation, and have no stomata on their "leaves". Therefore morphologists say that bryophyte leaves are not "true leaves". -- EncycloPetey 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

We are used this term with a different mean and both are correct. I used this term mainly for plant propagation, and you are used it for plant anatomy. -- Ricardo 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I rewrote the hook for Plant physiology as the DKY editors wanted the text to refer to the accompanying picture. Please review the new hook and change it as you desire. Regards, -- Mattisse 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with the hook appearing in any format that isn't factually wrong. I'm more concerned with getting publicity for the newly enlarged key article. -- EncycloPetey 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm on it. Thanks for the ping -- Samir 00:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey there, I just saw your comment on Librarianofages' talk page. Thanks for the chuckle! But, um, what about viruses and prions?? :)

Anyhow, I'm not sure if you saw the CFD notice that was posted at Category:Speciesist articles shortly after you left your note for Librarianofages. But I thought you might like to know that the category is about to be deleted. Such a shame. Cgingold 12:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article plant physiology, 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.

-- Carabinieri 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Petey,
I've updated DYK as you asked, but I don't have the time to inform the article creators and nominators. Could you do that? Below, I've pasted the relevant info. - Mgm| ^(talk) 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure; all done. -- EncycloPetey 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Credits

Credit templates

• Article talk page: ({{ dyktalk}}) {{dyktalk|2 May|2024}} (check if small style templates in use, if so add small=yes parm)
• Article creator's talk page: ({{ UpdatedDYK}}) {{subst:UpdatedDYK|2 May|2024|Article name}} --~~~~
• Nominator's talk page: ({{ UpdatedDYKNom}}) {{subst:UpdatedDYKNom|2 May|2024|Article name}} --~~~~

On September 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Betalain, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 ( talk) 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 1 October, 2007, a fact from the article The Lady of the Lake (poem), which you recently nominated, was 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.

Cheers, D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 1 October, 2007, a fact from the article Early editions of the Hebrew Bible, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Andrew c  ^[talk] 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 1 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trowulan, 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.

-- Andrew c  ^[talk] 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 2 October, 2007, a fact from the article Lost in Beijing, which you recently nominated, was 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.

Cheers, D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 2 October, 2007, a fact from the article War in Abkhazia (1998), which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi - pardon me, but I have made an error in creating an article, Freedmen's Savings Bank. The actual name is "Freedman's Savings Bank" - is it a problem? Is it possible to remedy this problem. Thanks, K a r n a 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes. I have moved the article to the correct title. -- EncycloPetey 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Many thanks! Now I understand that "move" function - wasn't sure and didn't want to screw up using it. Thanks again, K a r n a 02:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the DYK nomination for pseudoforest! I hope you don't mind that I suggested tweaking it a little. I had already been thinking of nominating it myself, but your nom spurred me to work harder at making my prose readable. — David Eppstein 04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Glad to be a force for article improvement :) I used to read Martin Gardner's articles on Topology and have dabbled in it a bit ever since, though I've never had a formal course (sigh). Most of my college mathematics was limited to analysis and statistics. -- EncycloPetey 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 3 October, 2007, a fact from the article Diamond (gemstone), which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Wizardman 19:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 4 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ingram de Ketenis , 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi EncycloPetey...Nice to know you will be involved too with this project. If you've looked the creation time, I created this project just today, and still is very much in the discussion phase. There has been a suggestion that we generate a taskforce on plant evo-devo rather than as a separate project. What is your opinion? Also, I propose the users start mentioning their area of expertise, or atleast, the area they are most comfortable with, so that coordination between each other becomes easier. What do you say? Gauravm1312 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I think it might be better to work as a sub-project rather than as a task force. I think that in part because evo-devo overlaps with a few other independent projects such as MCB. -- EncycloPetey 12:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for starting the next update (which is now overdue). I noticed that you included three that were related to the United States. I'm not sure if you follow WT:DYK, but there has been a lot of criticism about over-Americanization of DYK, and I wanted to warn you to be cautious about that. (No more than two per country is the usual rule of thumb.) I realize most of the oldest entries are American, which makes it harder, so we may have to use three. Rigadoun (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I had noticed that, but had also noticed that nearly all of the soon-to-expire nominations were from the US as well. (If you want the list of nominations I add to Template talk:Did you know, you'll see that almost none of them deal with the US, precisely because I want to keep potential listings as topically and regionally varied as possible.

In putting together the Next Update, I deliberately left space for additional nominations, and would not at all have been surprised or upset if someone had moved a nomination back from the Next Update to the Talk page. DYK selection is a community process, and I simply wanted to have as much as possible started on the Next Update to lessen the work others would need to do. Thanks for the advice! -- EncycloPetey 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Generally it's been my feeling that one-day expired nominations can be included, as the supply of decent articles varies substantially from day to day, so that backlogs of usable items are common. Moreover, often problems are only noticed at the last minute, meaning that good-faith efforts to fix the articles result in an article that becomes usable only when technically expired. Could you possibly join the discussion at the talk page about this? Regards, Espresso Addict 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Which talk page? I could not find the discussion. Also note that the currently scheduled update is blocked by our school site, so whatever is on the next update could block schools from access to the main page if it's put up. -- EncycloPetey 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know -- generally a good page to watch if you update here regularly, as it's where changes to the rules are discussed. I didn't understand what you meant by "blocked by our school site", I'm afraid -- could you explain? Espresso Addict 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

My guess with the blocking is Ivo's recent edit summaries (the talk page may be blocked for that reason too). There isn't anything objectionable on the next update template, so if that's the reason, it won't be a factor for the main page. Rigadoun (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Espresso Addict updated the main page. Can you check to make sure you can see it? I can't think why it would be blocked. Rigadoun (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

As Rigadoun suggested, the problem looks to have been the expletives in the edit summary, so I'm hoping that all should be well. Shout if there's a problem! Cheers, Espresso Addict 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 5 October, 2007, a fact from the article Literature of Egypt, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Re: your great idea at plants. You might be interested in this recent news story http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/05/2052512.htm. I left the title off, it was a bit rude. The complexity of the relationships is mind boggling. Cheers, Cygnis insignis 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I knew about the phenomenon in the Araceae but hadn't previously seen a cycad example. -- EncycloPetey 06:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It was interesting that heat to flipped the signal back and forth. I'm looking forward to the article. Regards, Cygnis insignis 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I am currently trying to write a 'wiki' page on Agroecosystem Analysis. I would truely value any input you may have towards the subject. Please feel free to pass on the topic to anyone you know who might have an interest in agroecosystems. I am completely new to this format and am learning as I go. Thanks for your time!

Sorry, but that's not a subject I've ever studied. -- EncycloPetey 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 8 October, 2007, a fact from the article bluestripe snapper, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Carabinieri 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 8 October, 2007, a fact from the article Michelsberg culture , which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

becouse the file you gave me was a png it ended being easier to create a new one than editing the one you gave me. if you need anything changed let me know - LadyofHats 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 12 October, 2007, a fact from the article Mechanisms and processes of evolution, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 13 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Utica (203 BC), 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.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 14 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ziggy Pig and Silly Seal, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 09:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 14 October, 2007, a fact from the article Gamma ray burst progenitors, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

hi, i couldnt find another image from the Cornus sericea seed. i didnt want to make a direct copy so i was looking for other seeds diagrams wich may contain what you were looking for. from those i made 2 diagrams:

I do not know weather this are the ones you need, or if it "must" be the same kind of seed you mention. Please let me know.- LadyofHats 18:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• • here is the avocado seed, i hope i got the parts right. if you have any changes let me know - LadyofHats 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

ok it is changed- LadyofHats 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

How is a conservation status relevant to an organism that became extinct 400 million years ago? By the same token, is it necessary to include a cross, which is understood by a small proportion of the readership, when the "fossil range" makes it clear that the genus is not extant? For the division, I could follow the argument, but it seems redundant as is. Taxoboxes rapidly become cluttered and including redundant information seems a step in the wrong direction.

Verisimilus  T 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your advice. You might be interested in discussion on the tree of life talk page; this edit removes redundant information which does not alter the formatting - I imagine that is what you refer to.

All the best, Verisimilus  T 16:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 24 October, 2007, a fact from the article Origins of Falkland Islanders, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 24 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colombian folklore , 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 24 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Haplomitriopsida, 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That comment let's people know where they stand right away. I like it!

I came here because of the liverwort article, which I enjoyed.

I have seen liverwort growing in an old greenhouse. Can you tell me, is deliberate culture of liverworts practical? Thanks, Wanderer57 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there, just a note to let you know that if you had any questions about the article I'm not going to be editing as much as normal over the next few days so I might not respond immediately. Tim Vickers 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that this article has been marked "under review" by you for over a week. Might I suggest that you either decide to pass, fail or put on hold the articles or remove the "under review" notice so that others may review the article? Cheers, CP 21:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been making thorough notes and requesting advice on how to proceed. Now that I have the advice, I'll be posting the review today. -- EncycloPetey 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

hoy, i was wondering if you have a more acurate source for a new diagram of a procaryote cell, i was left rather unconfortable with the idea of the old one not being complete or acurate enough.. do you have anything i could use?- LadyofHats 10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but the article has failed GA review. I have left constructive comments on the talk page, and I wish you and the other contributors well in your efforts to improve this article. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance whatsoever. Have a wiki day! Mmoyer 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I saw your reponse on my talk page, and am doing a bit of research. I want to make a thoughtful, constructive reply, but have been a bit short on time the past day or two. I expect to respond in another day or two as my schedule permits. Thanks for your patience! Mmoyer 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have added some comments only (no vote) to the discussion for the appeal to explain my thought process. I readily admit that this is only my fifth GA review, so I will learn more by reading others opinions on this matter. Please be patient with me. My only intent is to "do the right thing". Thanks! Mmoyer 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing the switchover for this very helpful work. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I, BorgQueen, award this barnstar to User:EncycloPetey for the tireless work on scientific articles. Please keep up the good work. 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

By the way, I agree with your view on WP:ACID. We need to change the system. BorgQueen 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I just added a new one, with the updated information, to the page. Cheers, heyjude. 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure. As long as I have distribution data, I can make a map from it. Just let me know which articles need maps. Cheers, heyjude. 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there, would you have any use for the admin tools? You seem very well-qualified if you wished to apply. Tim Vickers 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been on the fence about that, mostly since I'm an admin on Wiktionary (where the policies and procedures are very different). But sure, OK. Then I could help with the DYK updates. -- EncycloPetey 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Tim Vickers 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll have a careful read through your contributions and write up a recommendation this evening. Tim Vickers 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Would you be able to search through all the articles currently assessed for WP:PLANTS and determine which ones are actually redirects? I've been finding assessments on redirect pages, and this seems like cleanup that could be automated--moving the assessment to the target talk page, or removing it if the target already has an assessment template. I'd do this myself except that I have so idea how to go about doing such a search or automating the replacement. -- EncycloPetey 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've found a few of those, too. I gave it some thought and couldn't come up with a way to locate WP:PLANTS article talk pages with article page redirects. I'm sure there's got to be a way, but I only use AWB with my bot, which I don't think can do that. We could ask over at WP:BOTREQ to see if anyone with more knowledge could help us. -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

If you know whom to ask for help, and where to ask it, you already kow more about it than I do. I've never used a bot; all my editing is manual (or as manual as you can get while using a computer). -- EncycloPetey 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Success! I'm letting BotanyBot crawl through the entire list of plant articles on a setting of "do not follow redirects" with instructions to make a dummy edit if the text "#REDIRECT [[" is found on the article page, thus saving a list for us to work on. Now, it's going to take a long time to complete the list. I've had it running overnight (about 14 hours, now) and it's only gotten through 7,000 articles. 18,000 to go. But here's an initial list that needs to be fixed. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And going and going and going... 9,000 more articles to scan. I updated and moved the list to User talk:EncycloPetey/Redirects so it wouldn't clutter up your talk page here. The list should be completed shortly. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply

All done! :-) Let me know if you want some help correcting those. -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 05:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 10 November, 2007, a fact from the article Agatha Christie: An Autobiography, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- PFHLai 07:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

On 10 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monosolenium, 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.

-- PFHLai 08:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

...for reverting vandalism on my page Jackaranga 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

More than welcome. -- EncycloPetey 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Pete, re Liguus ... I got a bit confused by the current hook, as my reading of the article was that it wasn't clear that the colour/collecting caused the extinction .. and I wasn't sure that I wanted to make collecting sound appealing. Be that as it may (as these are minor failings as the article is the truth, not so much the hook),... Im not an admin so cannot make the change... but I don't object to it. Vic aka Victuallers 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I've linked the DYK item to some more articles as you suggested - all except the link to shell which I piped through to gastropod shell, see what you think - I've purged the changes through. Bobo . 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, sorry. I see the link now - I viewed the link on the page without looking at the page source. Hopefully the item is as you wish it to look now. Bobo . 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And at the risk of putting a complete kibosh on your current 100% support rate, your Request for adminship is going rather well. Hopefully I'm not out of the realms of fortune to be wishing you premature congratulations on what I have witnessed from you in the past is going to be a very well-used set of tools - just a shame that this correction to the DYK column wasn't needed tomorrow, otherwise you could have done it yourself! What timing.

Congratulations. Bobo . 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hope I'm not too late, but I've been sick most of this past weekend and so haven't tried to do anything that involved too much thinking.

Could you photocopy some portions of the following article for me?

• Piippo, S. 1990. Annotated catalogue of Chinese Hepaticae and Anthocerotae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 68: 1-192.

The portions I'm interested in are:

1. Abstract
2. References cited
3. Maps at the outset (if any) that summarize geography covered in the article
4. The section on Marchantiales (if separated from other groups in the article); if not I'd be happy with the pages covering Monosolenium
5. The section on Anthocerotae

Thanks, -- EncycloPetey 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Nope, not too late! I decided to go today (Tuesday) instead and I checked my talk page once I got here. Your item has been copied! I just need to transform it into a pdf and you should receive it soon. Hope you feel better! -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

All ready to be mailed to you! E-mail me through the site with your e-mail address so I can send you the pdf. Cheers, -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the DYK team!! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! You are now an administrator! Secretlondon 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Cool! New toys. -- EncycloPetey 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! If you have any questions just drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

My congrats, too; I know you'll do well. :) I'll get back to Acetabularia soon as well; I've gotten a bunch of scientific papers from various places, which I'll digest once I have a moment to breathe. Back to enzymes! (huff, huff) Willow 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You'll do well. Just don't get too distracted from doing your awesome article-writing. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 14 November, 2007, facts from the articles The Big Blowdown, and Nurses and Midwives Tribunal, which you recently nominated, were 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.

-- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem, I don't hold it against you. I moved the article into the namespace instead of copy-pasting. Is this proper form, or should I copy-paste next time? Also, in the case of an article which took so much work, it would probably be better to alert the author next time, though I realize this isn't always possible. Have a nice day! - Oreo Priest 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi EncycloPetey, you might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over that last week, this was partly spurred by the threat of IPs being allowed to create new pages, but also has a more general objective. This other reason for this effort was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I decided that the best way of dealing with this idea was to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.

Since you have now passed the selection, could you in turn select and nominate some people you trust - I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. Tim Vickers 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It's an understandable position, and one supported by POLICY, so I'll see whom I can find. I'm sure it would help if more people had the keys to the broom closet. -- EncycloPetey 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That would be great, I looked through the apparently endless discussions on how to improve RfA, but they didn't seem to be heading anywhere - the simplest way of achieving our goals seemed for us to just nominate more people. Tim Vickers 22:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you give a look to my last image the Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg.i had troubles finding good sources and i am not sure i got everything right - LadyofHats 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I will be busy for a few days, but will reply shortly. You obviously did a lot of work on the diagram, as usual. -- EncycloPetey 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't understand why you have reverted links to external sites which were added this evening (eg, tracking, orchids, ferns etc). All links were to non-commercial sites. The sites do not sell anything. They are purely informational in nature. They do have ads, which help to pay hosting costs. Have read guidelines for creating links to external sites and the links seem to be in line with this. The external sites have plenty of relevant supplementary information of value to visitors to Wikipedia. Please enlighten me. There must be something I am not understanding. Thank you very much!

The sites were a series of systematically added spam-links added to commercial websites selling products. Please see item #6 Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided. The site being linked is mostly adspace. -- EncycloPetey 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, you do need to take a much closer look at those websites. The Home Pages of those sites do not have a lot of info, as they are portals to the rest of each site, gateways to the extensive information behind it. They are most definitely not commercial sites with "mostly ad space". They do not exist for the purpose of placing ads. They are not commercial sites. They are packed with information, purely for the information's sake. Those sites were created and are maintained purely for the sharing of information, for the love of it, over many years. Truly a labour of love. Without any expectation of monetary return. (Hmmm, similar to Wikipedia?) The sole purpose of the ads is to offset hosting costs. The sites are not vehicles for ads. That is not their purpose. Having read "Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided" the only possible criteria that could be used against these sites is #6, "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". And IF these sites come under that, well that is indeed a first in the many years that they have been online!! Normally the response to the sites is one of gratitude for sharing the information. I do undertand the concept of controlling spammers, as I have to deal with large number sof them on a daily basis in forums I administer. Spamming, I respectuflly submit, is most definitely not happening here, in my opinion. Perhaps the effort I am making in this inquiry is an indication of the sincerety of these claims? Thank you for taking the time to read my remarks.

Even without the ads, the various .com sites were not appropriate to the pages where they were added. (see #14 in the link above) A page about ferns in the Canadian province of Ontario is an inappropriate link for an encyclopedia article about all ferns of the world that have existed throughout all of time. Likewise for other similar link placements. Wikipedia is not a link catalog to the internet; it is an encyclopedia.

If you are sincere in your effort, why did you wait until after the block to respond to postings requesting that you cease your spamming? -- EncycloPetey 06:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 02:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You're are very welcome! I'm very pleased to hear of your success! Enjoy the tools. :-) Lra drama 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Congrats on your new sysop bit. Thanks for your good work here. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

can you please unblock so i can add more well produced enteries? the raccoon from wiktionary thank you please inform that semperblotto does not like me as he calls me a vandal

That's not my call, and as I said it's only for 24 hours. There are ways to use that time productively towards new entries even without being able to edit. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

this is urgent i got blocked by semperblotto why? the raccoon from wiktionary? maybe you could inform when i'am getting unblocked? -- Alaop ( talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It looks like you were blocked for 24 hours for hasty contributions that required a lot of cleanup. Usually that means you need to look around at how pages are formatted during the block time. Wiktionary block policies are very different from Wikipedia policy, because the data structure is very, very important. Wiktionary is also very short-handed on monitoring new contributors, so blocks are more likely to happen there than on WP.

Since it's only 24 hours, my suggestion is to use the time while you're blocked to look back at your list of contributions, and study how others modified your initial pages. That way, when the block ends, you'll have a much better idea of what the community is trying to achieve and produce better start entries. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi :-) I saw all your work on the plant stubs recently. Thanks for creating those other two stub types and updating the BotanyBot subpage. Much appreciated. I also wanted to check in and see if you had grabbed the pdf file off my website. I don't want to keep it up there for long since it technically is breaking copyright - publishing on the internet - but, how else is one to send a large file like that? Hope all is well. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Not at all. Sorting plant stubs was where I got my real start on Wikipedia. I think I was the person who first proposed (and started) the initial subcategory stubs from {{ plant-stub}} by taxon.

Yes, I have the Piippo article on my computer now, thanks². You can remove them. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Excellent. Thanks again for all the additions you're making to the stub list. Do you think the page works better now that I sorted by taxonomy instead of alphabetically? And do you know of anything that could take the place of all the nbsps? It's the only way I could figure to make a visual indent. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It is easier now to see super- and subcategories for sorting purposes, but you're right that the nbsp's make for awkward formatting. I can't think of anything simple as a fix. The only possible suggestion I can think of is a massive table organized along the line of the one I did for the Diversity section of the Plants article. Perhaps one with periodic sections interspersed that give the header? It would mean another massive restructuring of the page, though. But I'm not sure that would solve the indent problem unless you used a really clever implementation of colspan. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I doubt many people will be editing it, since it serves as reference. The stubs don't change all that often except in little growth spurts like the current one. The reason I started that template was for the purpose of easily seeing which categories needed split; I guess it worked! I think I've spent enough time on it already, so I'm not going to worry about the nbsps. Well, a quick trip to spend quality time repotting plants and then it's off to bed. G'night! Rkitko ^{( talk)} 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you know whether the importance ranking of Core is used only by the 1.0 assessment team (and realted teams) or whether it is general to all assessment projects? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not really sure. I know that we could change {{ WikiProject Plants}} to understand the rating "core", but I don't know whether or not User:WP 1.0 bot would understand it and keep it logged. As it is, when something is changed from Start-class to List-class, for example, the bot treats it as if the template had been removed entirely, thus lists don't show up in our current article count. Not sure if that's by design or if the bot only recognizes the simple functions. I poked around a bit in the WP Assessment information but couldn't find anything. I was planning on updating our project template to include the link to the portal and some other minor changes. Do you want me to include a "core=yes" parameter with a category so we can track these core topics? Or would you rather it be in the importance function? Rkitko ^{( talk)} 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

If it can be set as core=yes, then that might be a better solution. Odd that you can't find documentation either, though. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

We can always change it later, too. Next question would be if we want a notice like the "needs-taxobox" parameter. Something like: "This page has been identified as a core topic for WP:PLANTS" or something similar. And if so, choose a color for the background :-)

Well, that all depends on whether the "core" designation is reserved to the WP Assessment team, doesn't it? It's why I asked whether we can designate articles ourselves as such, or whether that would just lead to confusion. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see what you mean now. Whether or not we can use the designation "core" for our articles when it's mostly just used to refer to core topics on the whole of Wikipedia. We might want to ask them about that before we go ahead with it. But I think if we make it clear these are the core topics of WikiProject Plants or Botany core topics, I think they'd be fine with it. Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I was also planning on maybe changing the category for needs-photo to Category:Botany articles needing images to better represent all of the image requests in that category. SB Johnny and I discussed this a bit on WT:PLANTS, but we didn't really come to a conclusion or get other input. I would then take care of the 21 articles in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants and turn it into a category redirect with instructions on how to use the needs-photo or needs-image parameter in the plants banner. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I like the new name better, or perhaps Category:Plant articles needing images to tie in with the name of the project WP:PLANTS. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, and for the sake of consistency across those "needing" categories. We do have some non-plant articles in that category, mostly botanists. I could see it as an easy stretch, though. Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The danger in using "botany" is that we attract fungus and algal protist listings as well. It's a trade-off either way. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, true. I hadn't thought about that. Category:Plant articles needing images it is, then! And I've worked it out in the template so that "needs-image=yes" and "needs-photo=yes" do the same thing so we won't need to change any of the existing assessments, but editors can choose to use needs-image in the future if they so wish. Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

My, these are a bit of a mess. I took a look around to see what families could be split from existing orders, and discovered that the problem is worse than that. Currently, the Rosales stub category includes all the Pittosporum stubs, but that genus is in the Apiales under APG II. The Malvales stub category includes many members of the Oxalidales. The Malpighiales includes lots of Cucurbitales. All of these seem to be the result of Polbot, so not only are the stubs wrong...the taxoboxes will be wrong as well. :P

I think a new {{ Cucurbitales-stub}} and {{ Oxalidales-stub}} will greatly reduce the size of some of the larger rosid stub categories, but it will involve hunting down the articles and fixing taxoboxes. I won't have much time for stub sorting the next couple of weeks, but have put in some notes, ideas, and suggestions on User:BotanyBot/Plant_stubs. And by the way, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for setting up that page. The Stub Sorting group used to keep track of the sizes of all the stub categories, but it just became too much work to maintain. I always thought it was a useful idea, so I'm glad to see it resurrected for the plant stubs, at least. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

PS - I think a {{ Nepenthes-stub}} would be useful, yes? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've noticed the problems with Polbot's taxonomy as well. I believe Alai's bot was stub sorting based on information in the taxoboxes. If you point them out to me like above, I can have BotanyBot fix the taxobox and stub sort at 5 edits per minute so you don't have to take the time. There's still a bit of controversy over some of these taxonomic changes, but I trust you know higher taxonomy better than I. I still see a mixed bag in articles when it comes to Bombacaceae versus Malvaceae subfamily Bombacoideae.

I think all the stubs you created are very useful. I created that user subpage to make it easier to see which stubs might need splitting. To my surprise you found it and ran away with it. So thank you - I would probably have spent a lot more time making decisions on where to split if you hadn't stepped in. I never knew WP:WSS had tracked stub category size. It does seem like a good idea, but their scope is much larger than the scope of this list. I could see how it could get overwhelming. Though certainly a bot could easily check daily and generate reports. Anyway, I digress. I wanted to ask you, though, since you were creating all those stubs. Do we still need to propose stub types at WP:WSS/P? I know Alai trusts me with stub creation, but I think if I decide to split anywhere, I'll probably take it to that group.

The WSS proposal procedure is much loser today than it was two years ago when I started. (And given my long history with that group I'd be surprised if Alai didn't trust me with stub creation as well). All the one's I've created would be speedied as following the pattern set down. However, if there were a genus stub to make, I'd definitely propose and wait first, in part because a genus name can look like other things (where a family or class will have an ending that sets it clearly apart). That's part of the prposal rationale -- to keep ambiguous names out of the mix, and as well to make sure they get listed on the official list (which I've been very careful to keep as up-to-date as I can, even for those stubs I wasn't responsible for).

As for using a bot to fix the Polbot mistakes, I'm not sure how that would work. What information would I need to supply? For the Oxalidales and Cucurbitales, a list of pages could take almost as long to assemble as it would to edit them by hand, given the scattered nature of the stubs in question. I'm not fluent in the genera of rosids, so I have to look up the family info each time to see where APG II put it; the rosids and asterids changed around a lot from earlier systems. But, it is nice to know there's a stub-sorting bot. If I had known about it before, I wouldn't have had to sort the Algae stubs by hand. Almost all the green algae stubs were added by WillowW who used a reasonably good source with very good skill, so the taxonomy is mostly current (though I found two or three oddities that had to be fixed). The bot could certainly tag the Nepenthes and Polygonaceae stubs, as they have correct taxobox information (well, except for the division which is "Tracheophyta" in all the Polbot additions of flowering plants). -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for explaining the rationale involved in WP:WSS. Makes perfect sense. You don't need to create a list. All you'd need to do is alert me to something like the above - that a particular genus/family/order is in a shambles from Polbot and needs sorting - and I'll go to it. See diff for one of BotanyBot's contributions. I had to create a couple family categories under Cucurbitales and had to sort a couple things by hand, but the category Begonia was entirely Polbot's work, so it was easy to make BotanyBot take care of it. Category:Cucurbitales stubs should be fully populated by now. Rkitko ^{( talk)} 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, Category:Cucurbitales stubs isn't fully populated. For instance, I found Anisophyllea‎ wasn't in there after the bot run. Did you run it just through the Category:rosid stubs or through Category:Rosales stubs as well? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, oops. I missed that one. I had the page open and was going to take care of that one manually but my browser decided to quit on me and I forgot to reopen that page and change it. I'll double check in the other stub categories, but I think I've got them all. Rkitko ^{( talk)} 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed, the bot handles longer lists better. The more hands-on material requires individual attention. Thanks for the additional tasks :-) I'll get right on it. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And yes, I agree that a Nepenthes-stub template would be useful. There are a few still lurking out there that wouldn't be classified as stubs anymore, so that I might have to do those by hand. Thanks again for all your work on this! Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Brunellia - stub as {{ Oxalidales-stub}}
• Cecropia - stub as {{ Rosales-stub}}, fix taxobox order as well
• Tropaeolum - stub as {{ Brassicales-stub}}, fix taxobox order as well

All done. Let me know if you've got any other tasks for the bot. Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The Ficus should all be stubbed as {{ Moraceae-stub}}, and the taxobox div/class/order fixed as well. The Pittosporum stubs should all be {{ Apiales-stub}}.-- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Done! Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input in view of your contributions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, the defination of genetic drift and mutuation has been copied from the article evolution, which is currently a featured article (recently featured). you might wish to raise the issue there also. i will try my best to re-write this whole article. Sushant gupta 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I have made an adjustment to that page; it had the definition and cause reversed. -- EncycloPetey 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

are there any more technical problems in the article or is there anything else i can add in order to make this article a GA. thanks, Sushant gupta 10:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

firstly congrats you are now an admin, also can you please re-reviw the page. thanks, Sushant gupta ( talk) 10:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It still has many, many problems. One problem is that the first section (not the introduction) seems wholly out of place. It is a summary of what evolution is, which should be in the evolution article, not this sub-article. The article still does not explain what is meant by an "evolutionary mechanism" or and "evolutionary process" and does not clarify what difference (if any) exists between them. Much of the text is written for a advanced college class in the subject, and does not make the material accessible to the general public. The structuring is also bad, with 14 independent sections; I have made an attempt to group some of them logically but the super-headers will require a few sentences each to summarize and introduce the underlying sections. It still needs a lot of work. Why not ask for help from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 17:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

since you stood up for reviewing this page i thought of discussing this whole article with you since you are knowledgable and a responsible wikipedian and an admin also. anyway, mechanisms includes selection, gene flow, genitic drift and mutuation and processes includes adaptation, speciation and co-evolution (these are outcome). you are also talking about the first section; i think it is of immense importance. you said that the page should be accessible to all; so it (the section) would provide them a general background about evolutionary mechanisms. articles here on wikipedia should have more technicality. if this article doesn't serve much purpose for any layman then i can brief them in general on the page Introduction to evolution. hopefully my points might be satisfactory to you. thanks, Sushant gupta ( talk) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It's not a question of being satisfactory to me. you are trying to get the article pushed through to "Good Article" status, and I am advising you on the criteria they will be using. A general article that is too technical is not likely to be granted GA status. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

who said so; i mean i haven't read this criteria anywhere. is it a new criteria for GA's recently introduced. i didn't knew about it. what about FA's. anyway thanks a lot for updating me. thanks, Sushant gupta ( talk) 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It is criterion #1 on " What is a Good Article?" : which part says that prose should be readable and jargon should be explained. Perhaps you should read the criteria. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

i know what 1) criteria is. it is not mentioned that technicality is the prob. thanks, Sushant gupta ( talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is. You have to follow the links to the relevant policy on jargon. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. I'll get right on that tomorrow, or depending when I get home tonight. I decided to take a small trip down to Cincinnati for a half-weekend for some sight-seeing and photography. I'll let you know when it's complete. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Cariniana, Couratari, Eschweilera, Gustavia (genus), and Lecythis Done. And re: adminship, I appreciate the thought. I think the tools could be useful in some cases and I wouldn't mind helping clear backlogs where needed. Thanks! Rkitko ^{( talk)} 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks as always! -- EncycloPetey 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Happy to help! Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Please revert any IPA redirects you think are inappropriate, or let me know if there's a particular category of article you object to changing. Readers have been complaining for years that the IPA is inaccessible, but I'm only trying to do this in cases where all the reader needs is help with a few symbols, such as 'the following chart uses symbols from the IPA'. That's the vast majority of cases, but I can't spend much time with any one article, so I've probably redirected the link where I shouldn't have. kwami 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! That's good to hear. All the best Tim Vickers 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your encouragement with this. I worked on it a bit more and just nominated it for FAC. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The FAC has been a bit on the quiet side, would it be possible for you to add some comments or suggestions? Your input as a non-biochemist would be particularly valuable, since I sometimes forget to explain technical terms! Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You supported Sons and Lovers, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinalewis ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Second time I've been accused of being uncivil in this RfA. I'm probably not helping TH at this point, but I think people (you and others) are pushing too hard to get perfection in a candidate, and using 'civility' as a way to throw off criticism of your opposition. In my view, long-term constructive editors with no history of vandalism or other abuse should enjoy the presumption of trustworthiness - and the trustworthiness of a user in the eyes of the community is what we are here to determine. Not 'is this user too wordy' or 'I disagree with the admin school and oppose because user participates'. Particularly not because someone failed to answer your optional question, or answered correctly but not in exactly the precise manner you were hoping for - many of these difficult questions with many answers are traps, intentionally or not. I won't be apologizing for criticizing your oppose, and I don't agree that my criticism has been uncivil. Avruch ^Talk 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not bring your POV to my talk page. I am allowed to vote on my own and am capable of making a decision for myself. If you disagree, that's fine, but please do not accuse me of things just because I don't think the same way you do or vote the way you want. It is not my responsibility to explain to you how you are misinterpreting what I've said. Again, please do not bring your POV on a vote to my talk page. If you did not come here to apologize, then you have no reason for coming here. Your vote is your business, not mine. -- EncycloPetey 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

1) Your talk page doesn't belong to you. 2) You asked for an apology. I explained why one would not be forthcoming. 3) You accused me of being mean spirited and uncivil. I explained why I disagreed. 4) Your vote, and all comments on RfAs and other community processes, are open to discussion by everyone. If you don't want your reasoning to be examined, don't vote. Avruch ^Talk 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

To quote WP:CIVIL: "For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another."

Conversation ended. Please do not escalate this to WP:HARASS. I have asked you to stay away and not bother me, and you have already chosen once to disregard my request. Instead, you have returned to fan the flames of incivility. Please do not return to my talk page and please leave me alone. -- EncycloPetey 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello EncycloPetey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Good morning! I tried your "E-mail this user" link and just got This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.. Do you have an alternative e-mail address you could swap in? That would tell us if it was a problem with the software or a problem with one specific e-mail address. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It seemed to send this time. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Did it work? Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been sorting out the Salicaceae stubs, and now am updating taxonomy for all of Polbot's entries categorized in Category:Malpighiales stubs. I've come across two genera with many species that could use a bot fix. Neither genus is in the Malpighiales under APG II, so both the taxobox and stub need to be corrected for all the pages in the genera:

• Saurauia, which should be Ericales, and {{ Ericales-stub}}
• Nasa (genus), which should be Cornales and {{ asterid-stub}}

The latter also needs a genus page, and needs to have the genus link corrected. Right now, the genus for all these entries points to NASA via redirect. Should we use Nasa (genus), or commandeer Nasa from redirect to article, with a disambig link for the space agency? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll get right on those. I'd say we could reasonably commandeer the redir Nasa. The whatlinkshere page showed less than 50 links, quite a bit of those are the Polbot species pages. By the by, I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of resources for a list of species in a liverwort genus, Colura. IPNI failed me in that department and I only cobbled together a handful of species from JSTOR articles. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

My goodness! I greatly appreciate all the info you just flung my way. It's a fantastic start. The genus is on my backburner for now - I just wanted to get a start on it and lay down a nice list. I'll certainly get around to expanding it soon. And with those refs you pointed me to, I'll have no problem!

"The major texts on bryophyte ecology don't seem to mention possible carnivory at all." Indeed, it appears as if it has only been mentioned in passing in a few rather obscure documents. The carnivorous plant researchers pick through those obscure references, though, and stumbled upon it when updating information on the protozoan-munching Genlisea. The ref given in the genus article is highly respected and the authors are all fantastic researchers in the little world of carnivorous plant research. I just thought it interesting that some liverworts have been accused of carnivory. Another genus, Pleurozia, was also identified as a possible carnivore. There was a study [6] on a species from that genus as well, I just haven't been able to access a copy of it yet.

So thanks again for all that info! Oh, and BotanyBot finished its run, so those two genera should be complete. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1. Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well. I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Having seen your comment on the talk page, please have a look at the CFBS article now that I've finished adding the details of the rolling stock. Mjroots ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry about jumping the gun. Dec 6 had no suitable hooks left. Dec 7 has some problem hooks but, you're right, there are a few suitable ones left. Maybe we should have ADYK (almost did you know) and not put it on the main page! Chergles ( talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

If you like, I can handle passing out the credits, so that you don't have to congratulate yourself ;) -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

That would be great, EncycloPetey! Thanks! -- PFHLai ( talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I had just gone to upload the image for the next update, but saw you'd already done it. I like that much better than logging on and finding it's been 10 hours since the last update, as occasionally happens. Congrats on yet more quality DYK help. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much, EncycloPetey. So glad to have more than one person updating DYK. :-) Also, thanks for reloading DYKNU in advance. That's much easier than trying to update with DYKNU still empty. Double thanks for picking my noms. :-D Cheers! -- PFHLai ( talk) 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Mama always told her children that, when gifted with a delightful trinket or somesuch, one must immediately despatch a note of thanks to the donor. So, Mr EncycloPetey, one is most grateful for the small colourful addition that you contributed to one's User Page in reference to the Mold cape. One tries one's best to make this world a better place, be it by one's contributions to this establishment, or simply by one's glittering presence, which shines a little light on the drab and dreary lives of those around.

Princess Venetia di Cannoli ( talk) 10:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

That is most gracious of you, thank you. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 14:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to see that you took that off your user page. It was the singlemost memorable item the first time I visited your user page. I mention this because we just had what I would rate as Wiktionary's best edit ever. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 05:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

That is truly amusing. Thanks for sharing! :-) Rkitko ^{( talk)} 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't mind that you removed this from Next Update, but just to let you know you forgot to add it back to the nominations page, T:TDYK. Cirt ( talk) 23:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC). reply

Actually, I didn't forget... I lost my internet connection while I was moving it and just regained access. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Looks like someone else ended up putting the nom back on the nom page, so no worries. Thanks for replying to me though. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC). reply

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December, 2007, a fact from the article Gary Willard, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Cirt ( talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December, 2007, a fact from the article Eoörnis Pterovelox Gobiensis, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Cirt ( talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December, 2007, a fact from the article Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Cirt ( talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, EncycloPetey ... I understand there are quite a few notable topics who still need an article! -- Victuallers ( talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know that one other DYK contributor was so keen to get a medal that he stubbed his toe? Victuallers ( talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

DYK overdue! Chergles ( talk) 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Iapt.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I am in the process of updating the article which will use this image. This is why it is orphaned. If the bot (and its user) will be patient, then the image soon will not be orphaned. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It doesn't have a fair use rationale for its usage in the article that you've created for it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Well noone bothered to mention that there was a specific template that had to be used; I've added this now after hunting down what was required. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Image:Iapt.gif, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. β^_command 21:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You are a bot. That is an automated message. Would a user please control this bot? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

That was the user. And that was an error in good-faith. No need to block anyone. You're not allowed to use fair-use image in the userspace. Only in articles. Cheers! Maxim _(talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) Betacommandbot is a bot. Betacommand is an editor. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The image appears in an article, and the user failed to respond to messages until blocked. He has now resorted to abuse. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You're abusing your administrative priveleges and being incivl on Beta's talkpage. That's much worse than an honest misunderstanding from Betacommand. Certainly not grounds for a block. Maxim _(talk) 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I attempted twice to communicate with the user/bot about the situation. I received no response. I blocked, then received verbal abuse. I stand by the block. Please identify the violation of WP:CIVIL. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You're actually dealing with a human user who had not violated WP:BLOCK in any way, although had maybe been a tad overzealous in prosecution of Wikipedia's fair use policy (the action of removing a non-mainspace fair use image was valid, but the need to do it was not high as it was destined for mainspace). The "out of control" block message, your initial response to this thread, and immediate previous messages from BetacommandBot on your talk page lead me to conclude you mistakenly believed that BC was his bot and was operating "out of licence" - I would suggest a simple apology would go a long way. Orderinchaos 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The user/bot has violated WP:HARASS in stalking my edits, reverting good faith edits as vandalism, and failure to communicate with me except in templates when contacted. A one-hour block is appropriate. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Bots can't violate WP:HARASS. It was not an appropriate block. Prodego ^talk 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It was the user who violated WP:HARASS, and it was the user who was blocked. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This comment has been archived for reasons of user access. β^_command 22:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not use offensive language on my talk page. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not edit my comments, see WP:CENSOR β^_command 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please stop. You should not have blocked a user you were in a dispute with, Betacommand did everything right (if a bit abrasively), and your block was not within policy. You also need to stop these sort of comments, as a whole they are starting to run into WP:AGF problems. So please calm down. Prodego ^talk 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You have an interesting viewpoint. I would not call responding to patient comments [7] [8] with vandalism warnings [9] "doing everything right". What exactly are you asking me to "stop"? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Your block was completely outside policy in that (a) Betacommand did nothing that would warrant blocking and (b) you clearly blocked him for his conduct in an dispute with you. I would hope you would appreciate that blocks should be issued by uninvolved admins wherever possible. Betacommand's hostility in response to your block is regretable but I'm afraid people do tend to be angry when on the receiving end of an improper use of the block button. I suggest you apologise to Betacommand for one of the more absurd blocks I have seen, and then he can apologise for the language he used to respond to it. WjB scribe 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but WP:HARASS may not be policy, but WP:BLOCK is a policy and does link to it under reasons for blocking. Tendentious editing is linked from WP:HARASS and described off that page as "You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others". I was not in a content dispute with Betacommand, I was having my edits reverted as vandalism. [10] Based on Policy and the pages linked from policy, there was indeed a policy reason for blocking, so it cannot be said that the block was "completely outside policy". Perhaps it would have been better to have an "uninvolved" admin assist, but I did first try to communicate with Betacomand (twice), and received only a vandalism warning as a reply. I am looking now simply to move on, not to continue to dwell on this matter. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Guys please, it's over with now. It was a bad block, but lets not dwell on it - the best thing to do is for all parties to move on (as I've suggested on Betacommands talk page) - it's been a sorry event all round, and all parties could have handled it better. I think they both get the message. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think there's anything wrong with ensuring that an admin - especially one who has only had the tools for a month - knows when to block and when not to. I understand that EncycloPetey wishes to move on, but bad blocks can have serious consequences and wanting to be convinced the mistake will not be repeated before moving on seems sensible. This doesn't seem to be the first block of a longterm user in dubious circumstances [11]. I would like to see a clear indication that EncycloPetey wouldn't block again in these circumstances. WjB scribe 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The incident to which you refer ended amicably. I quickly realized my mistake, unblocked, andapologized [12]. As you also can see in the section below, the user playfully requested my help today with a DYK update. Now, please, may I be allowed to cool down and go about my business? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree, it is important that EncycloPetey know not to do this, until then we can not let it drop. Prodego ^talk 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You make this sound as though you are planning to harangue me over an incident that has ended. I hope that is not the case. Please just leave me alone. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You misunderstood me, I didn't intend to imply anything like that. I just want to make sure you understand the policy. If Ryan is going to assist you with that, I see no further problems. Good luck, and if you are ever unsure about a block, please ask first. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Did I misundertstand when you said "until then we can not let it drop"? Please don't answer that; it is rhetorical. If I have misunderstood policy, then please explain in what way I have misunderstood. I have given my rationale above, and have received no reply pointing out a mistake in my reasoning. All I have had is something that feels more like bullying. Unless you are providing explanation of the flaw in my reasoning above, please leave me in peace so that I can resume contributing to Wikipedia. This conversation has led to nothing useful or productive, and so far has cost me four hours during which I had planned to be contributing. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It was poor wording, and I apologize. The policy on these things Ryan has agreed to explain, and I suggest you direct that question at him. However, if you would prefer I do, I would be happy to. Prodego ^talk 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

What I'm going to do tomorrow for EncycloPetey is give a full evaluation of the events, with respect to pre and post blocks. It'll look at all sides of this dispute, and hopefully explain the policy reasons why most consider this block wrong, along with the the "discussion" that followed on betacommands talk page. I'd appreciate everyone giving me till tomorrow to do this, I'm tired tonight, and I'm only half way through looking at everything. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

EncyclopPetey - in the interim, could you please consider appologising to Betacommand? I hope you agree it was a poor block and you owe him that much. Thanks in advance. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've filled the next update page. Would you transclude it to the main page? Don't block me by mistake :) Archtransit ( talk) 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, but consider moving to the main page and let me or others award the credits to the hook authors. Archtransit ( talk) 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, I remove one. Archtransit ( talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I think DYK helps article building. When I learned of DYK, I created some articles but now I try to let others get credit and gain enthusiasm. Archtransit ( talk) 22:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi EncyclopPetey. I can see you've had a few problems with your blocks that you've made so far (I know there's only been about 5). Would you be interested in letting me mentor you to make sure everythings OK with respect to you tools? I can keep a check to make sure you're doing everything right, and give you advice if there's any concerns. You can also ask me any questions that you might have, and I'll help you wherever I can. What do you think? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Any sort of friendly educational communication is always welcome. Be advised that opportunities for mentoring in the matter of blocking will hopefully be few and far between. My first block was a case of a linkspammer who did not respond to messages; my second an obvious vandal (school site) that had previously been blocked for a long term; my third was not so immediately obvious as a problem, but the edit history and communications from other admins showed that there was indeed a problem. My fourth was an unfortunate misundersatnding borne of trying to ensure the main page was safe. I continued to check on the user after issuing the block, discovered my mistake, and so unblocked and issued a profuse apology to User:Archtransit. We have no ill-feelings between us, judging by his playful remarks earlier today on my Tlak page. My fifth block is the first time there has been an issue about the appropriateness of the block, and I made sure it was only for an hour. There was some confusion on my part as to whether it was a bot or user being blocked, as I had no return communication from my postings other than templated messages. Again, I would welcome additional experience, particularly from someone skilled. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah excellent. I see you don't make many blocks, but it's always important that when blocking users, we get it right. If you're not sure on a block, discuss it with me - it's often better to get a second opinion on things. I'll take time to make sure you're getting things right, and if there's a concern, I'll make sure I find the applicable policy so we can work through things together. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Very well, if Ryan is going to offer guidance on blocking I will leave this in his hands - I do think you should consider apologising to Betacommand but ultimately that's up to you. WjB scribe 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi EncycloPetey, I want to talk through with you the problems with your block of Betacommand ( talk · contribs). The situation arose because you removed tags that BetacommandBot had added, leading to Betacommand reverting your edits as vandalism. This was obviously wrong, he shouldn’t have reverted you and then warned you for vandalism, it obviously wasn’t vandalism. I think the block was initially made in good faith, you blocked what you thought was a bot making edits that weren’t within the scope of it’s bot request. The problems came when the block was reverted as a good faith mistake, and you changed your story in an attempt to justify the block – This wasn’t the correct thing to do. You claimed that Betacommand was harassing you, yet all he was doing was reverting your edits to images which many would argue were wrong. This in effect meant you were in a content dispute with Betacommand and given your new reasoning for the block, you blocked him to stop him reverting you. If you look at the blocking policy, you will note that administrators should never block another user that they are in an edit dispute with – quite simply, you are nowhere near neutral enough to make the block. If a block was required, you should have reported it to WP:AN/I and let an uninvolved administrator make the block – in this case however, a block wasn’t even required, and problems could have been solved through discussion. When you’ve blocked someone like this, you have to expect them to be upset, and further problems came when you kept posting to his page – it antagonised the situation. In a nutshell, this became a serious matter when you changed your story, and said you blocked Betacommand for harassing you – edit disputes are not won by blocking the other party, and this kind of block is considered an extremely serious matter and grounds for further action if the behaviour continues. The advice I can give you if anything like this occurs again is to discuss the situation before acting, either with me, or with uninvolved admins on one of the noticeboards. In all your future blocks, you should be a neutral party and only make blocks with a deep foundation in policy. If I was you, I would concentrate on other admin areas and only block users where you are 100% certain a block is required such as for a vandalism only account. I hope this gives you some advice and will help you when making block decisions in the future. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, that makes more sense as a rationale, and wish this had been clearly pointed out yesterday. In all fairness, I was not changing my story, but changing my justification. Initially, I thought I was being harassed by an out of control bot, then discovered after the block and some exchange that it was a user making reverts and posting the templates. The length and similarity of both user names, the similarity of the two "user" talk pages, in combination with the lack of any response communicated except by template reinforced my misconception. I did try to contact the user/bot, and just wish I had receieved a personal reply that explained the situation to me instead of impersonal templates. That way, I could have had a discussion, and would have learned there was in fact a user on-line and not just a bot. It's nigh impossible to have a discussion if the other party only speaks Template. I do understand now that people perceieved me as "changing my story", and thus the ensuing discussion. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The names are similar, and Betacommands bot has proved controversial so I believe you blocked in good faith, thinking it was the bot. It was a poorly handled situation, Betacommand shouldn't have been templating you like he did and it just went down hill from there. With respect to changing your justification, I think the best thing you could have done would have been to appologise for the block once you realised it wasn't a bot you blocked - there was little need for you sto state WP:HARASS, it made the situation worse because then it appeared you blocked because you held a grudge against been targetted, hence why I talk about you blocking in a content dispute above. I think you understand now why there were serious concerns yesterday and I'm in no doubt that this will be a huge learning experience for you. We all make mistakes, it's often best to just bite our lips and admit them. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been working on algae, but I messed up one of the references in the intro. You'll see it immediately. Please help! -- ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ ( talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I fixed it temporarily, but it can probably be done better. At least the big red letters are gone. I'm talking about the reference after "Algae are paraphyletic and polyphyletic..."-- ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ ( talk) 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Fixed. Prodego ^talk 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I was panicking :) I tried almost exactly what you did, but I messed it up somehow.-- ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ ( talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to notify everyone that participated in the original CfD and the deletion review that there is a new CfD to reverse the proposed changes to the taxobox categories. Justin ^chat 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

On 19 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Association for Plant Taxonomy, 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.

-- Carabinieri ( talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks also for the puzzle on my talkpage, though I'll be honest that I haven't had a chance to work on it yet! I'll definitely take a look when I get some more time though. Unless you'd like to give a hint to speed things along?  :) -- El on ka 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Transposition system, eh? Alright, hmm (goes into brainstorming mode)... so word breaks don't look natural, so the spaces are probably mixed with the rest of the text. The numbers are interesting, 6 and 8, I wonder how those tie in. Maybe a railfence? Or a grid system, maybe 6x8? No, too many letters for that. Heck, could be an 8-tiered Christmas tree, or a spiral, pull it off by columns, or rows... Lots of possible combos... Maybe if I found a long word and then tried to line things up? How about context? It's certainly going to be English... I wonder if the word "Congratulations" is in there somewhere....

I'll print it out to take on the plane on my way to family Xmas (though can't guarantee I'll have time to look at it, family Christmases being what they are ;) If I still can't get it by after New Year's, I'll ping you for another hint! Have good holidays yourself, -- El on ka 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, thank you for your constructive criticisms on the Introduction to Evolution article. I am somewhat pleased with my orchid addition to counter the lack of plants. Give it a read if you get a chance. Also, I added variations in maize to artificial selection. Stumbled across an interesting web site on preserving genetic variations in corn. We stuck on necks out and went for the F/A status after making the edits. The commentary page should make for some interesting reading. Wish us luck! Cheers. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply

On 21 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Couch, 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.

-- Royalbroil 01:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 21 December, 2007, a fact from the article Climate of Georgia (U.S. state), which you recently nominated, was 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.

Did you know? was updated. On 21 December, 2007, a fact from the article Joseph Rogers, which you recently nominated, was 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.

-- Royalbroil 06:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've signed up to review IAPT, nothing much is llikely to happen for a few days due to the festivities, but at least it's on the list. Merry Christmas, Jimfbleak ( talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. If there turn out to be problems that I might be able to fix, please let me know. I have some vacation time this week. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for the additional Colura refs. Appreciate it. I'll get around to expanding on the genus page perhaps after we tackle the collaboration project. The purpose of my message, though, is this. I got the idea to check out the WP:PLANTS assessment and noticed an odd unassessed-class/mid-importance article. Did a quick AWB intersection of the categories to find out that it was the Victoria amazonica article. Flipped on over to the talk page and... you had assessed the class three minutes earlier. And that same thing happened before, where you were getting to those talk pages and assessing the oddities faster than I. How do you do it?? :-) Rkitko ^{( talk)} 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You were just slowed down by running category intersections. ;) I just went to the bot-generated page where the list of stubs ends and the unassessed articles list begins. All the assessed / unassessed articles are listed in a regular and predictable sequence. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah! That never occurred to me. I was beginning to wonder if that rustling in the rhododendrons outside was perhaps something other than the wind... Thanks! Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 03:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, that |attention= yes really works! cygnis insignis 12:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I actually thought when i got up this morning that my changes had been too interventionist, so I've restored the text prior to my all edits, and commented on the talk page. Jimfbleak ( talk) 06:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Glad to see you've decided to take up this article, WP:DINO looks forward to your comments! Sheep81 ( talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I protected the page itself, didnt' realize that didn't work. I'll go and take care of uploading it then. Wizardman 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yo, what name is this image on Commons? Because it was deleted while still linked in an article but the name is different. Lara ❤ Love 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No, my bad. I didn't realize it was a temporary thing. I like the cropped version better, so I actually added it to the article when it was up on the main page. Then I went to the article today and it was a red link. So yea, I uploaded it to Commons. It's all good now. Lara ❤ Love 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I note that you have made no recent edits to IATP. Are you happy for me to review it as it stands? My intention is to clear this within the next two days anyway. Jimfbleak ( talk) 08:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No, not entirely. I'm making edits off-line and trying to find additional references. One of the concerns you raised was that the references came almost exclusively from IAPT publications. I've been trying to find additional references not published by IAPT, but so far have not been successful. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you really want to be part of a project that evaluates and gives recommendations and ranks and declares the importance of articles without having read the content? I don't to want to be involved with a group of people who work that way -- but I am new here. Perhaps you can sum up the advantages there are to being part of a project like that so that I can better understand the situation that put you there and keeps you working within the project.

I really like the upload page for commons uploads. It says It's all about freedom'. Have you seen that? Thanks -- Carol 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. That's why I read the article before I assign it an importance ranking. Please do not vandalize projects just because you do not see their value. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply

That is not how the project works with the articles that I am writing. Perhaps the next time I remove the Plant Project template, a handwritten evaluation can go there. It would be proof that the project reads the contents before evaluating. All I have right now is proof that they don't and proof that they have spent more time reading and writing their own guidlines and knowlege of where they are. No wonder there is an idea that the readership are mentally impaired or not capable of reading -- it self descriptive of the project?

Is word counting the same as reading? Also, here are the questions that I asked in easier to follow detail:

• Do you really want to continue be part of a project that evaluates and gives recommendations and ranks and declares the importance of articles without having read the content?
• Can you sum up the advantages there are to being part of a project like that?

wiktionary on vandalism: Needless damage or destruction of property, usually someone else's property or common or shared property. To me, if a project is not reading the content while making evaluations and self-citing their own work to explain themselves it is the destruction of a common or shared property as the credibility is not there with them. They know more about themselves than what they paste their little advertisements upon. Perhaps you cannot say what being a part of a project gets for you because all it gets is a colorful template with built in urls to a bunch of people who perhaps don't read the content of the pages that they are spamming with their pretty little self-referencing advertisment.

Please, explain this a different way. Use the definition of vandalism and not just the word. -- Carol 06:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)