This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Indeed... it's more a pasture and garden problem than a cultivated field problem. In general though, discussion of weed controls on wikipedia are kept to a minumum. If you're interested in the topic, however, I'm looking for collaborators on the wikibooks versions of these articles; see b:Category:Weed_profiles for the ones I've worked on so far. -- SB_Johnny| talk| books 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants - Thanks for your productive editing! I came across the page you had started on Embryonic, where you changed it from a redirect to Embryo. There's already quite a good page on plant development ( Plant embryogenesis); maybe you could add some of your information to that? It seems to me that Embryonic should go back to forwarding to Embryo, which touches both plant and animal development. What do you think? Cheers, Figma 19:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants. Can I ask about your edits to the page on tepals? The description that you added on 11 December, titled "clean up and clarify" seems to be at odds with the usual definition of a tepal. Do you have links to any material which supports your definition? Thanks. Owl 14:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
>Can you be more specific about what you are questioning, I listed two sources on 'additional reading'
The first paragraph of your article refers to tepals as a specific feature of the Magnoliaceae. This is at conflict with several sources online, as well as the previous version of the article on Wikipedia. I don't have access to a library at the moment, so I can't check the books you've referenced. I happen to have "Plants: Diversity and Evolution" (Ingrouille and Eddie, Cambridge University Press, 2006) here, however. It is definitely referring to tepals in plants other than magnolias. I find the previous version of the article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tepal&oldid=91340499) to be clearer and more consistent with how other sources seem to be using the word. Perhaps you would like to view that version, and clarify the text as it stands (which is basically your version, I've just tidied up the styling a bit. Oh, and just to note - could you post on my talk page, not my user page, please? I have moved the conversation across. Thanks. Owl 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't produce the first part but brought it up from the original start of the article. Keep in mind that Magnolia is the proposed fist flowering plant line. I do not believe any modern Magnolia corresponds the first of its kind. I will look at the article and move the first section- since you are right that its a meaning that is rarely used and should not be at the beginning. Hardyplants 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still think the earlier version sounds clearer and more authoritative. Please don't be offended, but can I ask if English is your first language? Perhaps we should start with the previous version (link in my post above). What do you think is wrong with that as it stands? If we add back in the paragraph about evolution, do you think that is a fair description of a tepal? Owl 17:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I saw your new edits - it was clearer than before, but I'm afraid I still didn't think it was as coherent and clear as I'd expect of an encyclopaedia. I've taken the liberty of editing the page myself. I've started from the earlier version, and tried to add in everything that I thought you were saying. Have a look, and if you think I've missed something that you said, let me know. Thanks. Owl 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, Hardyplants. Someone who wasn't logged in, at IP 209.244.187.83, reverted to your version of the Tepal article. Was this you? I must say I disagree with the revert. If you stand by your version of the article, I would like to take it to the Mediation Cabal, to get a third opinion. Thanks. Owl 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the references from the lead paragraph of Acanthomintha duttonii? Mike Dillon 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Two things. First, please be more careful with stray line breaks; they make it hard to use the "history" tab to see what has been done to an article by making inline changes look like entire paragraphs were removed. Second, what are you doing with the "[4]" stuff instead of the original references? Were they meant to refer to the Jepson manual? I've assumed that was the case and restored the "ref" syntax. Mike Dillon 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! Thanks for your recent contributions to the goal of WikiProject Plants (e.g. Pentaphyllacaceae, Sladeniaceae). I was just wondering if you could make an effort to apply our standard format to the articles (see Stylidiaceae for a good example of a starter article with the correct formatting). Specifically, we'd like to see a {{ Taxobox}} on each plant taxa article, bold titles (as in, the first mention of the subject of the article), and italicized genus and species names. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Also consider joining us at WP:PLANTS, where we look to other editors interested in botany for help on specific items. Cheers, -- Rkitko ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I appreciate your enthusiasm for this article, but I had to revert your edits again. I maintained one sentence in the intro that you had contributed, reworded and referenced it, but the other edits introduced grammar mistakes and weren't of any great importance to the context of the article. If you can provide rationale for why these minor changes are necessary, I'll reconsider. Best, -- Rkitko ( talk) 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote:
Mr. Clark thank you for your response, I have seeds of H. hispanica that I can photograph and add to the page, I can also show the seeds after they take in water- they like many species of salvia and other genera develop a thick gelatinous coat that is interesting. I also have seeds for almost 3,000 species of herbaceous plants and have wondered if it would be worth while adding pictures of them to wikipedia, hate to go threw the work and find that they have no use. Hardyplants 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think such photos would be immensely valuable even if not all were used in Wikipedia articles. I'm assuming they would be at adequate magnification to see details (and it would be useful to have a scale of some sort in the photo), and that you'd take care not to include species that you believe to be misidentified. Identification of species (or even genera) from their seeds is often difficult, from lack of good reference material.
It would be best to place the photos on [ Wikimedia Commons] so they can be used in Wikipedias in all languages. And post a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants so editors of plant articles will know that the resource is available. I'd start out with a few, to see how much trouble it is and get suggestions from other editors for improving quality.
In short, potentially a really valuable contribution.-- Curtis Clark 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your time in responding, I can take good quality pictures but have had problems with the images being to large 1.5 to 2 mgs. I can take the pictures with a 100 to 1,000 magnification with good resolution, this depends on the size of the seed, Peony species have large seeds but the Lady-slipper Orchid seeds I have are very small. To do it right I will have to construct a box that is lighted on four sides and uses a diffused light source - otherwise Its takes a lot of time to adjust the images with a photo editing program for contrast.
For the vast majority of the seeds I have I am very sure of the IDs, Sometimes I get seeds from Siberia and other Parts of Russia that come to me labeled with obscure names which are sometimes misspelled, its a choir to go threw the data bases to find the synonyms when you have the wrong spelling. Id of those species is tenitiv often, even after growing them out - since there is little info on them in English and no pictures. But its not difficult to see if the seed is in the right family or genus most of the time, but if its the right species thats a different kettle of fish.
Now that spring is here, I will be working a lot, it will take me a few weeks to get set-up. We do not have "spring" here in Minnesota - it goes from winter to summer in a few weeks, especially with the warming trend we are in now because of greenhouse gases and solar output. Here is some samples of picture I have posted already, no seeds. Hardyplants 10:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The authors of both the letter and of the page in question are pretty clear. It looks to me like the proper use of a primary source, generally speaking (purely descriptive claim, attributed to the source rather than in an editorial voice.) Regardless, though, the inclusion of the material should be discussed as a whole. If you believe the source is inappropriate, by all means argue against its inclusion, but we've never done "disclaimers" like that. Specification of the exact number isn't problematic, of course, an increase in specificity is always good. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
From your somewhat verbose answer I am going to conclude that you did not understand the issue. Simply stated: If Tom says that S=4. And Ken produces a book saying that Tom is wrong. Then Tom produces a article in wikipedia about Ken's book, and says "many think" Tom is wrong and uses a quote from his own web (Toms) page as evidence that Ken is wrong and Tom is thus part of the many that he uses as a reference.
Would it not be proper to state in the page in wikipedia that the page is heavily produced by Tom when the pages uses him as an expert also.
I do not have a problem with the reference as long as those reading the page know that the person being quoited as an expert, is also the one producing the Article. Hardyplants 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Your conclusion is incorrect. Yes, I understand the issue, that you wish to insert some type of disclaimer that someone being cited has also worked on the article. No, we don't do that. You're welcome to argue that the material is inappropriate to include at all, and you might have a good case for that, but if it's determined that it is appropriate, no disclaimers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's the way it's done now, although still rather new. When the common name is used for more than one species, and it is something like poison ivy, where the plant is not an ivy, but rather a member of the cashew family, it is hyphenated to indicate it's not an ivy. This issue properly belongs on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Please raise it there if you like. KP Botany 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants. I am interested in trying to help with your request. If you would like to accept this, please drop me a line at my talk page. Thank you. -- Dweller 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
i wish to drop the case, after giving it much thought I have decided that it is not worth the time. I wished to contribute to the page in question because it already had a good start and I had some more information and some points that would have made it more clear, but its a low priority and other items are more useful to spend time on. If you would like to still look at the issue here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stylidium_graminifolium&oldid=126277793 with my edits compared to the other editors page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylidium_graminifolium My apologies for the slow response. Hardyplants 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and close the case, thank you Hardyplants 10:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants, thanks for your report! In future, please format reports like this:
* {{IPvandal|IP Address}}
below the User reported section. If you format it otherwise, the
bot which removes blocked users from the list gets confused. Don't add new sections - it's all done for you already :) Thanks, and keep fighting the good fight. –
Riana
ऋ 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
-- howcheng { chat} 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I was just confused, as just before you edited the genus page, you had removed that series of "all caps" names from the image field of a taxobox, and thought you might have hit "paste" when you meant "copy" or something along those lines. Then I went further into the histories of both pages and got even more confused :). -- SB_Johnny| talk| books 08:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The Bio-star | ||
For your extensive work with plant-related article, I present you with the Bio-star award. Circeus 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Thymophylla, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Thymophylla is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Thymophylla, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --
Android Mouse Bot 2 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time I deleted the article, it consisted only of an image and a taxobox with no text, and therefore wasn't really an article. It hadn't been edited for an hour, so it didn't look like an article in production, and I had no way of knowing if the creator would ever return to it. It's best keep an article on your word processor until there is enough to survive a speedy deletion.
I'm not sure why I didn't put a reason, presumably I either thought it was self-evident or simply forgot to do so - either way my apologies for that omission.
You said I deleted the picture too. I don't think that is correct. The current image appears to be the one uploaded before the article was deleted, and I don't remember deleting the apparently validly licensed image. Hope this clarifies things, and sorry again for not giving a reason, jimfbleak 05:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report about 131.172.4.45 ( talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. No final warning for 131.172.4.45. Left uw-vandal4, but some edits look legit -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've undone your revert to the Stuartia article; it lost far too much new information that I had added (and which in fact supported the spelling as "Stewartia"). As several editors have taken an interest in this article, if you intend to edit it, I would suggest discussing it on the talk page first. MrDarwin 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants - couple of requests as per the wiki Manual of Style - could you use scientific measures on plant pages, not imperial units (incomprehensible to 90% of the world's population); also (re your additions to e.g. Verbascum thapsus) to use spellings relevant to the page (thus American English or Canadian English for American native plants, British English for European native plants, Commonwealth English for Asian plants, etc.). Thanks! - MPF 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
See WP:TALK#Others.27_comments . I have reverted your edit [1] as it inserted talk into mine and messed with what I said. If you want that word in the article you are going to have to come up with much better cites than what you have provided to date. I have no problems with him being an atheist but it is an attribute taken out of context for that article. His other attributes that are verifiable are descriptions that are more worthy for inclusion as they are more topical to that particular book article. Your trying to insert one unreferenced word "atheist" is based on your own research or interpretation of the references and how you can apply them to a passing reference that is secondary to the book synopsis. Ttiotsw 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Go back are read over the refs, its clear those that new of him new he was an atheist:
::# CANABAL. Handsome as the Hollywood villain of Mexican cinema, His Excellency Tomas Garrido Canabal has been the terror of Catholics as Governor of the State of Tabasco. "What is God?", Canabal is fond of sneering. "Nobody can tell me, but God has cost Mexico billions! We are going to stop that waste." Most people thought Canabal would pop up in the Cardenas Cabinet as Minister of Education, to scourge the pious with fresh assaults of Godless teaching.
Hardyplants 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
here we go:
The book is about a anti-religious atheist that eliminates the catholic church from Mexico and his persecution of a tainted priest.. Its generally know that the book uses Garrido Canabal as its arch-type. In real life Garrido Canabal was an atheist that persuced the church in Mexico. so you are saying that the fact that Canabal is an atheist whom persecuted the church in Mexico, in similar fashion to the character in the book, does not relate to the book. The motivation for both the real person and the character in the book is their atheism. Hardyplants 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Look I don't go around "purging sources" of any kind. I reviewed your sources because I have Religion on my watch list and I noticed the reverts. So I looked into the sources and you know the rest. This is pretty normal editorial behavior and its not personal by any means. Also, if you didn't realize what the guidelines for reliability were then its no big deal. Now you know where to find them. Just as an aside, however, in academia materials such as the ones you used as references would not be deemed reliable either and would not be acceptable sources even in a student paper. At least this is the case in the United States. Again, no worries, just take a look at the guidelines. PelleSmith 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I know the guidelines, looked at them when a problem came up in another article were some one used there own online blog as a reference and it was voted on that it was a legitimate source. Its Ok I will post some hard cover sources- and I do not mind the questions about clarifying the sources. So do not worry about any hard feelings. Hardyplants 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
your comments- I would cut out 90% of the parts talking about life on earth and move it to its own page, and start with the creation of the soler system and the differences between the earth and other plants. Then move on to covering the two driving forces effecting geology of the earth- the oceans and the water cycle and plate tectonics. SXo basicly I think it would flow better and make more sense in the outline format:
Hardyplants 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Since you were taking an interest in some edits I did there ( Goliath) recently, you might like to go back and see what I've done since then. I'd value your comments and input. PiCo 12:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of the ((notability)) tag at the article Randy DuBurke because you left no summery or talk explaining its removal. If you have a rational why the tag is incorrect or if you did some thing else to address the underlying problem please explain it before removing the tag. Thank you. 69.72.7.81 04:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
User talk:69.72.2.70
I checked on the notability of Burke on the net and He looked "good" so reverted your edit as more vandalism. Hardyplants 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you've made a ton of edits on plant articles! Why don't you join ProjectPlants? Aelwyn 09:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the situation with this plant, why IPNI lists it as it does, but you seem to be trying to prove something you already know. Can we work towards resolving the situation about why IPNI says what it does, with all of the information, or if you already know what you want to do about it, please just spell out why, so I can understand where you're coming from? When IPNI lists something like this, there is a reason in the literature for it, I would like the article to be accurate--knowing the reason also means we can include information so that our readers won't be confused by what they find. KP Botany 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I deleted your link to the Speiser article on ancient armour, for reasons I've described on the talk page. But I do appreciate your input, and I hope you'll continue to monitor what I write in a similar critical fashion. (I'd appreciate any comments you might like to leave on the Talk page regarding my arguments there). PiCo 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Your addition about the Speiser material was good. I've made an amendment to merge it with the Yadin material. Grateful to know what you think. PiCo 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with the current text, it starts off with Goliath being wounded and then hes dead and then its says he is killed because his head was cut off. To me it looks like what it might have said was David wounds or strikes down Goliath with the stone and David kills him by cutting off his head with Goliaths own sword. Instead we have a text that adds the extra word (kills) or is missing a word that links the second kills to the rest by way of saying this is how David kills Goliath.
I am inclined to believe that the story was told like so -
Thus David 01732 prevailed 02388 over 04480 the Philistine 06430 with a sling and a stone 068, and he struck 05221 the Philistine 06430 and killed 04191 him; but (because) there 0369 was no 0369 sword 02719 in David's 01732 hand 03027. {to kill Goliath}Then David 01732 ran 07323 and stood 05975 over 0413 the Philistine 06430 and took 03947 his sword 02719 and drew 08025 it out of its sheath 08593 and killed 04191 him, and cut 03772 off 03772 his head 07218 with it
. The texts seems to beg for an explanation of how Goliath was killed and implies the stone was not enough to do the job right away. We might never know though unless an older fragment shows up some were. For a modern take on the word smote look at this http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%94&btnG=Search+Images Hardyplants 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it needs work, but I really don't have the time, and was hoping someone would jump to the rescue. I'm going to unwatch now that you have it. KP Botany 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you hadn't noticed. The debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decurrent. Circeus 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The link does not justify the quote. Appears to be a Wikipedian's own translation from the French, misusing Whom. Though, if you can live with the grammatical error, and its misleading citation, so can I. Cheers, DBaba 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Amazing how the urge to expand an article can just spread like that. : ) Nice work btw. IvoShandor 10:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Even your own source you provided does not state Sunday was eliminated it just says that it had less of a chance of being a holiday. Lenin introduced the Gregorian calendar though subsequently this was altered in bizarre ways to improve production and utilise machinery though as it would happen central planning isn't really up to managing realities. Please reconsider if the text you have added really reflects the sources you are providing as I feel it doesn't. Why I was claiming it is synthesis (in associating it with "state atheism" is that Lenin introduced the Gregorian calendar so the case isn't as clear as the article claims it is and it is original research to grow the scope of what a source says (in this case sticking in the word "eliminate"). Ttiotsw 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Go back a read it again... it clearly says "In only one respect the five-day week was an unqualified success, from the Soviet point of view. It did help to make people forget Sunday" if Sunday was still around how could they forget it. The week ends were eliminated and staggered five day weeks implemented, this did not work so they moved to a week with out Sundays instead going to a six day week. Since a seven day week is very important in regards to religious holidays and the sabbath and the Lords day- the only real purpose for such an odd work week is to do away with those days. As the article on wikipedia even says. Hardyplants 12:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You reverted one of my edits from 4 days ago in an article that is meticulously watched by many other editors and has had nearly a dozen changes since my one small change and in which you never (AFAIKS) have edited before. OK I'm not really worried about stalking but your edit summary was "this is unclear and does nor follow the source given.". This doesn't make sense as you have reverted it to say....."in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have disturbing precedents." and yet the source provided only uses the word disturbing in the sentence, "Dawkins nourishes a disturbing contempt for religious believers.". The word "precedents" is uniquely used in the source as, ...".... the precedents of such medical analogies, applied to certain religious and racial groups, have hardly been innocuous in the history of the 20th century." and this is why I wrote my version which used "innocuous" in it !. Please explain why you have created your own material that says "disturbing precedents" in it when that phrase (and nothing like it) is in the source ? Ttiotsw 12:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
John Cornwell in his book Darwin's Angel and elsewhere [1] suggests that there are several lapses of understanding in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have disturbing precedents.
Hardyplants 12:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)" He refers to believers as "faith sufferers", and to himself and like-minded associates as "we doctors". Much as I am convinced that Dawkins deplores the ideology of nazism, the precedents of such medical analogies, applied to certain religious and racial groups, have hardly been innocuous in the history of the 20th century. Nazi ideology subscribed from the very outset to the idea of the German people as a type of anatomy subject to bacilli. It harped on the introduction of undesirable extraneous influences on the healthy societal body, the Volkskorper, behaving like pathogens; analogies of cures, surgery and purging naturally followed. As early as 1925 Hitler lamented the fact that the state did not have the means to "master the disease"
In regards to stalking, here is what it says and I would like you to show me were this applies?
WP:STALK
Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.
This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.
Hardyplants 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. . I have no idea what the problem is here. You are reverting my edits without regard for what I have said. I have filed a 3RR report against you and I will present my claims of disruption on stalking.
My original edit on 9th September - [3]
Thank you very much for the attention you have given to this article. I'll soon make some other changes.
Please, have a look at the talk page! Aelwyn 14:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. This user only vandalized once this month. -- wL< speak· check> 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The God Delusion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ornis ( t) 10:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Contributions 16:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report about 213.121.172.195 ( talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. The IP you reported was last warned more than two days ago, on 12 September, so those final warnings are considered expired, especially for a school IP like 213.121.172.195. Some other misbehaving student is probably using that IP rather than the one who got warned. Warnings on shared IPs are usually good for about 48 hours when an administrator is deciding whether to block or not because we must consider that address as probably having a different user at different times and also how well the owner polices the public terminal being used. By the way, I warned the new misbehaving student. Jesse Viviano 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate the help you're giving to the article. Please use WP:CITET standards for references. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi HP - re:
The above text does not make any sense, think about it for while. If the normal condition of the species is to produce plants with separate sexs (male and female plants) then they are dioecious NOT monoecious.
Hardyplants 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- the normal condition in the genus concerned (Pinus) is monoecious, with individuals producing (very roughly) 50:50 male and female cones; in subdioecious species (e.g. Pinus johannis), typically one individual will produce something like 90% male, and 10% female cones, with another individual vice-versa. They are not fully dioecious.
As an aside, it is doubtful whether there are any wholly 100% dioecious conifers; although many come close, it usually isn't too difficult to find individuals which don't conform to the standard for the species. For an example, Araucaria araucana is typically described as dioecious, but here is a monoecious individual with seed cones (green, round) and a pollen cone (brown, slender).
Hope this helps! - MPF 23:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you've been doing on the Seed article. I've noticed the section on "Seed dormancy" is growing rather long. Have you considered condensing that to a summary, and transferring the full text to a new article on Seed dormancy (currently a redirect), or using the existing articles on Seed hibernation and Germination? -- EncycloPetey 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've merged the content of the article to Asteraceae#Fruit and seed. I haven't asked because I think I'd have got no answer and the merger looked quite obvious. Let me know if it is a problem to you (almost only editor of that page). Bye! Aelwyn 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see discussion in the Roundup talk section. -- Zeamays 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hardyplants, thanks for the additional reference. There's no problem with the edit, per se, but the place for it is the Controversial Statements section, where that's being treated. The "Positions" section is pretty much a curriculum vitae. I've moved your reference to the CS section; there was no need to add the text, because that section already covers it. TJRC ( talk) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
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 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
could you point out the statements that you believe are not referenced. I believe essentially all the main points are referenced. Muntuwandi ( talk) 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Hardyplants, in an edit on December 4, User:Isoptera added information about glaze ice storms, giving what seems to be a web page created by him as source. This page starts with I propose that the north temperate deciduous forest is delineated by the glaze ice area. Where these forests extend out side of the glaze ice zone in the south it is because of uprooting on swamp and flood plain soils. There is a discussion of evolution implications. Since you have edited the article before and seems to knowledgeable about the subject (quite contrary to me ;-)), can you confirm if this is according to the current state of science and not original research? Thanks for your help, -- S.K. ( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Hardyplants! User:Rkitko suggested that your knowledge might be of benefit re: the discussion on Talk:Larval food plants of Lepidoptera. The issue is capitalization of genus names of plants, and making a list of links grammatically correct. Any help or insight you could provide would be much appreciated. Thanks! (note: I've also posted this issue to the WP:PLANTS talk page.) Cheers, Storkk ( talk) 11:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Paeonia peregrina, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Georgette2 ( talk) 18:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will read the article in question tomorrow when I get access to the journal. I apologize for acting hastily as it looked to me like you were referencing the Annals of Emerging Medicine (which is actually a self-published fringe journal that is only available in hardcopy form) rather than the Annals of Emergency Medicine. That's what happens when I deal with too many things in one day and am not careful. Sorry! 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Go to the local university library, check out a print of De Religio, they should have it, it is in the second half after the treatise on Jesus' youth. -- 68.3.73.87 ( talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We did make a positive contribution. We removed all of the fringe theory references, unreliable sources and original research. You can thank us all for taking our time out of our busy schedules to help out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a different kettle of fish, so how many would have to say "X does y" or how notable would that one person have to be before it could be included? Hardyplants ( talk) 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple of sources that can be cited for the use of various plant species in homeopathy: the Natural History Museum's Plants and fungi used in homeopathy database and the book Plant Names in Homeopathy. Both were produced by professional botanists. I suspect the anti-homeopathy editors will still delete the references, but if so it will just prove that they will not accept any source as mainstream or reliable. MrDarwin ( talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we can't make medical recommendations — but we can and should report the positions of health authorities (such as the EMEA) as long as we properly source them. Feezo (Talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please stop removing reliably sourced content. I asked for an independent opinion on WP:RSN and got:
“ | Juergensmeyer is certainly a reliable source... what we would call an 'expert' in the field. If there is a question as to the factualness of something he says, it can be expressed as his opinion ("according to Mark Juergensmeyer... etc.") | ” |
Following this, everything in the article in correctly attributed, and every point of view is cited to a reliable source. You may not personally agree with it, fine, but that does not mean you can remove massive amounts of expert reliably sourced content as you wish.
The article has now been brought into line with Islamic terrorism - same inclusion policies, same lead paragraphs etc. thus making Wikipedia more neutral. Wikipedia must be neutral on this issue - we cannot favour Christianity over Islam. Chris Bainbridge ( talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the same Internet site is listed in the other links in that page too. But I try to work on for better references. ASEOR2 ( talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See also Yakubher-Jacob mentioned as well as their exodus, which is similar to the moses exodus theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Just watch the video. Every setnence ASEOR2 has added to a Wikipedia article today nat least comes from this video. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
ASEOR2 your edits violate a number of principles at Wikipedia, your misuse of sources only compounds the problem. Blanking your user page is a problem too, I hope you read all the pertinent documents the templates linked to, but since you are insistent on adding your text and sources, I conclude that you did not or you think they do not apply to you. The text on Jacob is clearly SYNTH, your source says their names have the same root meaning, and from this you indicated they are the same person!!! Hardyplants ( talk) 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I have blocked the sockpuppet account. TigerShark ( talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to tell me why my contribution to this article was deleted? All the sources are more than reliable (obtained from reputable sources online and from my libraries database). Please advise. -- Amberhenderson63 ( talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How so? Llor N' Kcor ( talk) 04:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The way you are using the study is, you are making up your own novel conclusion from the information, you need to find a reliable source that makes the statements that you want inserted, you can't make up your own conclusion about what the study might mean. I would suggest that you read the Wikipedia policies covering this area. Hardyplants ( talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly was my novel conclusion? Llor N' Kcor ( talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless you are an expert in human physiology, please do not remove the poison warnings again from the references. ingestion of this plant can be fatal. (cut cardiac info- can't find any source that lists this.) -- go buy the book (Edible and Medicinal plants of the West, Tilford). You can also find detailed information in the Merck Index on extracts made from this plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.238.44 ( talk) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Its has toxic properties, yes - like a large number of plants but it is not in the class of belladonna or hemlock or yew The plants should not be eaten, though they do not tasty very good. Hardyplants ( talk) 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The truth is that I know at least two people that have eaten the berries by mistake, they do not have an enjoyable taste and cased some mild stomach discomfort, but this is original research and has no place in wikipedia. What caused more harm than the actual eating of the fruits was the news that they had eaten "snake berries" when they asked about the bright red berries in the woods - no one likes to be told they have eaten poison!. Hardyplants ( talk)
Also, you may want to check the image in the main article, it does not appear to be a Polygonum. It appears to be from the Genus Heliotropium. Now how on earth did that happen?
Greetings. Help me understand how and why you see this article as an "unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources." With so many references and relatively few {{cn}}
, I am having trouble understanding the need for that tag. --
Kukini
háblame aquí 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean - "still not referenced?" Following the provided link you can download Schirach's book - the page number is provided, so you can browse there and read it - and that's not supposed to be a reference?!
What would consitute a reference in your opinion?!
Regards,
217.236.236.19 (
talk) 08:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Of course it's in German so I translated it - rhymes and metrics are lost but semantics count, right?
Glad I could be of assistance. Let me know if you have need for other basic admin actions. Guettarda ( talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Heyas! No problem with removing the picture. Its just that here folks say that that image is of that species. I'm just puting that pic wherever ya'lls tell me to put it. :) Qb | your 2 cents 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This strikes me as an utterly inappropriate warning; the user is misguided, not malicious. What we have here is somebody eager to edit -- we can take the opportunity to turn them into a diligent contributor who helps out, or we can slap them in the face so that they never come back. Which would you prefer? – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For excellent cleanup work on Christian terrorism. Groupthink ( talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
I assume the warning you put on my talk page is due to haste? I was just reverting vandalism. =P Skyezx ( talk) 07:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a pain in the ass -- on the other hand, it is kind of nice and really cool to me to have plant people in the history of these articles since I messed with them. Thank you. -- carol ( talk) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Gráinne Umhaill does _not_ mean 'Grace of the Umhalls'. It's just a variation of Gráinne Ui Mháille, or Gráinne, descendant of Maille. Beastiepaws ( talk) 09:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Mhaille or Grainne Umhaill (Grace of the Umhalls)." The page needs sources and we have some for the use of "Grace of the Umhalls" Hardyplants ( talk) 10:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph seems unreadable to a layman like me; i'm not an expert on the subject, so i thought i'd ask if you'd be able to rewrite it? thanks. Ironholds ( talk) 20:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I am familiar. Very well, either way it seems you should read more sources on the subject then Jung Chang. You would then realize that even some of the most Anti Mao historians see her work as more of a story then history. I am not holding that against you actually. Jung Changs book was heralded by the press. Only problem is, the press is not composed of historians. However, I will work on the sources for this, indeed. ( Majin Takeru ( talk) 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC))
No one is arguing that the great leap forward wasn't a disaster. You are missing the point, and no, no historian agrees with damn near any of Changs writings. One, your just talking about the great leap forward and the "TOTAL DEATH NUMBER, GASP", two, you listing sources, maybe you should learn sources as well. None of those books are going to say "Everything Mao did is a direct representation of Maoist theory". Whats your point? I love when this turns into a debate that did not exist a minute before. A lot of people died while Mao was in power, we get it, everyone knows. We are debating about what is and is not theory, not if the great leap and Mao's policy was a disaster or not, though last time I checked, when Mao died majority of Chinese were much much better of in literacy, GDP, and living standards, but like I said, thats another argument. ( Majin Takeru ( talk) 13:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC))
Have not given you sources? On what? Historians and other disagreeing with Chang? Go look for Philip Short (Mao: A life) and Li Zhishi (The Private life of Chairman Mao, this account differs greatly from Chang's, and this man was actually there next to Mao, not out thumping people with little red books) there is two easy ones. Speaking of little red books, lets go to sources for Maoism, Quotations of Chairman Mao (AKA the little red book) would be a damn good start on Maoist Theory. Or you could read Maos On Guerilla Warfare. Next you can check writings of other prominent Maoists, such as Prachanda, leader of the Communist Party of Nepal. These aren't subjects and sources anyone who seriously studies modern China or Mao, or Maoism needs to look for or ask for. Since you are debating it, excuse me for assuming you know a little more about the subjects. (
Majin Takeru (
talk) 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
andIn this context, I have been struck by how many reviewers have latched on to my brief comparison between Mao, Stalin and Hitler. On a point of fact, I must disagree with Dr Richardson that Stalin's famines were unintended: the famines resulting from the expropriation of the kulaks, carried out by the Komsomol and by Red Army troops, were politically engineered – not only in the Ukraine, where the death toll was highest, but also elsewhere. In this case, no less than in the Great Purge, Stalin deliberately set out to liquidate a section of society he regarded as untrustworthy. That was not Mao's purpose in the Great Leap Forward. It is true that he made matters far worse by digging in his heels after Peng Dehuai spoke in 1959. But his responsibility was not the same as Stalin's.
from http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/cold/reviews/short.html in response to a critical reveiw of his book. The details do not seem to differ much. Hardyplants ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)I do not devote much space to Mao's economic ideas, because, by his own admission, he simply did not understand economics. His writings on the subject in the late 1940s are pedestrian; his interventions in the 1950s disastrous;
Also:
Short's Mao emerges as a vengeful, manipulative tyrant, increasingly delusional, disarmingly self-critical at times but asplike in striking down those posing a threat to his power, whose detachment from reality had reached alarming proportions as early as 1957.
and
In the case of Spence and Short, their conclusions seem uneasily close to the Chinese Communist Party's own verdict, delivered in 1981, in which Mao was deemed to have committed gross mistakes ... Westerners, free to reach their own conclusions, may make their own judgments. For now, that is a liberty the Chinese people, still laboring under the weight of the Communist system that Mao bequeathed, do not share.
form a review by John F. Burns, find it at http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/02/06/reviews/000206.06burnst.html
Ah nice, The first paragraph you have the source for Short saying that Mao is nothing like Stalin or Hitler. Thats a good counter to Chang, good job. Also what are you proving? That you know the sources and you play dumb when trying to edit and ask for the same sources? I don't get it. Either way, theory and practice are two different things. I don't really see a point in continuing this. ( Majin Takeru ( talk) 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
WP:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. I am positive that users and anon. users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page, especially when it is the same person who the commments were addressed to. 209.244.31.53 ( talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an active discussion going on at Talk:Origin of religion. I would suggest you take a look before there before considering your reversions. Cheers. Mr. Muntuwandi ( talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Here you reverted a passage as a copyright violation, but the passage was in quotes (admittedly the single-quote style preferred in Commonwealth English). I'm not sure you were aware that it was quoted. The passage was short enough to pass muster under US Fair Use laws. I'm not convinced that it was a useful addition, and it could have been rewritten, but it wasn't a copyvio.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Milkweed-syriaca-pods.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I tagged that article because i thought, as the tag said, that it was telling a fictional story in an in universe manner. Please assume good faith before reverting other editors posts as vandalism. ---- Greatestrowerever Talk Page 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
>>> I wasnt talking abput conspiracy theories nor wasnt I making accusations. It's just a speech he gave on a certain date. It seems to me you did the conspiracy thought and accusation. Not me. This information should be public. ASEOR2 ( talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote:October 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Hardyplants (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
<<< Hardyplants, you are a shame to the wikipedia society and shame to the humanity.
ASEOR2 ( talk) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please leave a message on my talk page clarifying how my edits of "Symbiosis" constitute vandalism? I'm not sure what I did wrong & I was certainly not trying to vandalize. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Feisty.gibbon ( talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)feisty.gibbon
Thanks for your feedback, Hardyplants. Feisty.gibbon ( talk) 10:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)feisty.gibbon
Can you please warn this user to stay away from me? Thanks, all he seems to be doing is bothering me. Please see my edits and his; I tried to have a conversation with him, and he deleted my comments. So I resolved to ask him to leave me alone. He deleted that comment too. Now every time I try to remove his nonsense, he adds it back. Thank you. Gabr- el 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi; I wonder if you should slow down a bit? You just gave a level 3 warning to this editor for vandalism that he had already reverted on his own accord, and then a level 4 warning for vandalism that occurred back in February and resulted in him being blocked for 40 days. Or has something else happened that doesn't show up in his contribs? Regards, looie496 ( talk) 17:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Please study the uses of the comma. This will not do:
Most seriously, but not alone, the vernacular name is the subject of the sentence, can be used is the main verb; there should be no comma between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we do the write up about the species on the genus page, when there is only one species in the genus? My understanding of this issue is unclear, thanks for any clarity you can help me with on this issue. Hardyplants ( talk) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're writing the article to contain that lovely image. If not, let me know, and I'll pop something up. -- KP Botany ( talk) 02:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Unknown23.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Unknown23.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Hardyplants (
talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If you restart your edit war to insert POV into Faith, I see a block in your immediate future. I suspect you'd do well to stick to non-controversial articles within your domain of competency, such as soil and mulch. Spotfixer ( talk) 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You do write plain encyclopedia-worthy English well. That seems to be the issue in the above article on Faith, also. Try not to expose yourself to too many hassles by doing so, Hardy, we'd like to keep you in plants. -- KP Botany ( talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
-- KP Botany ( talk) 06:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spotfixer ( talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
... that I don't notify the one plant editor who is on-line and editing. Anyway, I just started notifying interested editors, edit history down on the flora naming conventions page. Thanks for getting over there and posting right away, particularly since your viewpoint is so solid, in my opinion. -- KP Botany ( talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I just made a proposal here - your support is necessary, or could you propose an alternative? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you thought removing information, including a cited source, from this article improved it. I've reverted your edit for now -- can you explain why you think the section you deleted should be taken out? It seems to meet all the Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion.
Jonobennett ( talk) 11:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Greetings!
Your
recent edit to
Soil included a link to a
disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to an article. Thanks!
twirligig
Leave one! ⋄
Check me out! 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hardyplants - Thank you for your productive editing! And not just on soil. Although the information you added to soil on US soil classification is outdated with only 10 orders (see current version), I am taken with your concise explanation of those orders that you derived from your outdated source. I am going to do some searching to see if I can find a reliable source that will allow this element of your contribution to stand the test of WP time. -- Paleorthid ( talk) 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello I noticed this edit you made where you used a book entitled "The Complete Word Hunter" by John T. Gause (1955) as a reference. I happen to have this book and found no mention of "deciduous teeth" on the page in question (p. 456). Perhaps you were mistaken about the page number or the edition. When you get a chance please get back to me about this so we can get the reference cleared up and accurate. For the time being I do not intend to edit the reference. Thank you, Naufana : talk 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - I actually looked in the index and I don't know how I missed it. Perhaps it was because I thought you were referencing "deciduous teeth" but I still should have seen it. Naufana : talk 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing you meant "flour" here and not "flower"? Guettarda ( talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: its easy to find habitats where flowering plants grow and mosses do not in almost all geographical regions of the world (except those that are consistanly moist) Could you name a few? Mosses are found on the tundra, in the desert, in coniferous forests, on grasslands, at high elevation, etc. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is some refs for the statement: [11], [12], [13] = limits its self to vascular plants- so leaves open room for mosses. And [14] this seems to be a wide spread concept, I make no claim to know that its true or not, but that its a common statement. Hardyplants ( talk) 07:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"Angiosperms are by far the most diverse and widespread group of vascular plants." I think we can all agree to that.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just hold for a minute a consensus is being debated at the talk page. gorillasapiens ( talk) 03:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hardyplants, just regarding your last revert in terms of marriage, what else could you possible call a female-female relationship besides a gay marriage (which is what they were)? Would it be wrong to source all "man & woman" as heterosexual relationships or should those be removed? Let me know, no hard feelings -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 01:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is where it was discussed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marriage#Edit_Warring_on_Kinship_and_Sexual_Access_Rights
Notice it wasn't my line or idea, so it is a npov -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xan dar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but my english is not very good an I'm an engineer and all I know about the taxonomy depends only about my interesting... That you wrote me on the discussion of the main page vitis represents for me a piece of news! I 've ever known that I can tell that two organisms appartain to two different species only if they couldn't crossing them or their hibrids are not able to reproduce themselves. I reflected about the particoular situation of genus vitis, and I can extend my porpouses to the appletree and to other kind of plants. Now I ask: are we speaking about two different means of "specie", I about taxon and you about subspecie or rax or variety, or the current definition of specie is failed? If it's true the 2nd, are europeoids, negroids, asiatic different species of Homo? Or are "San Bernardo" and "terranova" two different species of genus Canis? I hope that you can hel me to understand theese concepts. (In italian please...)
Thank you very much -- Sandro.maoret ( talk) 09:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I can't help in Italian. Biological systems do not obey rules as uniformly as concepts in engineering. The current understanding of species is more complex than the basic idea that they (species) produce fertile offspring. It might be true for most animal species, but is not true for other life forms, with can intermix genetic material between species. This area of study in plant sciences is complex. I would sugest that you ask your question on the Italine wikipedia, they must have some editors that concentrate in biological areas, who can give you an answer or at least point you to references in Italian. Hardyplants ( talk) 10:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume you have a citation that makes this distinction? Because I found no such source. I also point out that the article talks about sexual reproduction much more than gender, and we lack an article on sexual reproduction in plants. Abductive ( reasoning) 06:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I've incorporated the information from Fl. Iber. into Verbascum thapsus (as a sort of culmination of a revision of source). It's the third paragraph under "Taxonomy", with a sentence in "Subspecies". Circéus ( talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The link you just added seems to be broken. Also, is it the link you meant to add? as it (ref. 2) is the same as ref. 1. Lavateraguy ( talk) 15:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
For the alpha diversity of monocots see World Checklist of Monocotyledons Lavateraguy ( talk) 09:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants, I've replied on my talk page. Regards, Paul August ☎ 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
For the style lesson at Salvia longispicata. One more question, which you may have seen at User talk:Rkitko: is the specific epithet italicized when mentioned separately form the scientific name, as it is in the second sentence? Maybe because it's latin? Or not? Thanks. First Light ( talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
THATS HILARIOUS!!!!!!!! Cozzycovers ( talk) 21:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD. Steve Dufour ( talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Stem nodes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hardyplants,
original sentence: As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
edited sentence: As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."; as such, it may be considered a form of delusion.
You have removed this edit and made the accusation of vandalism; the charge is not founded and the edit is presumptuous, given that the original sentence noting that faith is a belief not resting on logic or evidence is accepted.
Perhaps you are truly "faithful" and disagree with the above assertion, but the article would be better served by allowing the assertion in good faith to be expressed, and not suppressed. If you truly disagree, the proper course is to lay out what you may think would differentiate faith from delusion.
From the wikipedia definition of vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.
The above edit does not fit this; you are out of line in removing it and flinging your accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.228.248 ( talk) 04:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
See: [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.109.164 ( talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please add a headline, author(s) and a date to your reference? It's obviously The New York Times, but at some point the link might not work and we'd like to see what the article was. Thanks. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand, I think, why you did that; it's about sapiens not ergaster vs neanderthalis, but if you think about it, the point was that they divided then from the, at that time, direct ancestor of ours, not from us. They couldn't have divided from us at that time because sapiens didn't exist, so if you follow me, shouldn't we clarify that a bit at that point in the article? I wouldn't want the reader to think that we sapiens go back as far ast the original neanderthals. Chrisrus ( talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've started a thread on the talk page of Historicity of Jesus regarding my second recent full protection of the page. Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. - FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm concerned about this issue because, despite what the sources say, my personal experience is that poppies are not currently distributed or worn in the US as a symbol of remembrance to veterans or war dead. I understand this was once a custom in the US, but that the practice effectively died out long ago. I was born in the 1950's and grew up in the US, but I never saw an artificial poppy of the type described until I moved to Canada in the 1990's. Since returning to the US, I have worn a Canadian-style poppy every November, but only a tiny handful of people around me have ever confessed having the slightest clue about what it meant. I do acknowledge that the 2003 World Book Dictionary (one of the sources you just added) supports the claim, but I have to question whether this information is current or accurate. The Congressional Record source refers to a resolution — H.Con.Res. 424 (108th Congress) — urging Americans to wear red poppies on Memorial Day, and this resolution was indeed passed by both houses of Congress, but I wonder if this is a sufficient source because it doesn't support the claim that Americans actually do wear poppies as urged by the resolution (which, again, as far as I can say, they do not). Richwales ( talk · contribs) 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants I'm a little surprised by the info you added to the lead section of Magic (paranormal). I haven't read the book you cite, but it doesn't quite accord with my understanding of common scholarly views on the subject. I've left a comment regarding this at Talk:Magic (paranormal)#Sympathetic magic vs collusion with demons?. Perhaps you could give us a little clarification there? Thanks kindly, Fuzzypeg ★ 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I merely tried to write objectively what most scientist think about the subject, and objectively what most continents think w/out any personal POV. Please fell free to extend the body of the article, or modify my intro, but I definitely think it should stay here as a definer of modern-day thinking.-- Little sawyer ( talk) 11:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
...but my edit WAS constructive. At least in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beach45678 ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hardyplants ( talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Sometimes, the grass grows into a magical land of singing [[ mushroom]]s.
Appreciate your rational points very much. Does it require a hort degree to see that there are substantial differences between humans and animals? ;-) - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted 70.239.10.245's edits as vandalism. These three edits are good faith edits, albeit incorrect. Reverting these edits is correct, but labelling them as vandalism is very bitey. Be careful which reverts you label as vandalism, otherwise you could end up scaring off potential contributors. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 319° 21' 30" NET 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
'
Do not delete text without comment. You haven't made a single comment on the Talk page of the article. You have not explained your objections to the text. You have not offered an improvement. You've contributed nothing to the discussion. Under those circumstances, you are not entitled to repeatedly delete edits. I asked what the objections were to the text three days ago [20], you made no comment (nobody objected). I again proposed the text for discussion, before you deleted it---you didn't object or contribute in any way (but you deleted it). [21] I expressed concern that the wording you prefer lacks sourcing (and relevance) [22], and you haven't responded. Deleting without any attempt to work at consensus is vandalism. Your habit, like Bill the Cat's, of showing up mainly to revert is disruptive and destroys AGF. Noloop ( talk) 19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I have a few sources available which discuss the subject, admittedly in an abbreviated form, which I might post or link to on the talk page when they are completed. The ones which, well, speculate how Epiphanius got ahold of the book, where, and from whom, as well as a few which discuss the recent scholarly opinions regarding who it was who originally wrote it (there seems to be a significant number who believe it was written by the authors of the Pseudo-Clementines, not the Ebionites) might be most useful. I can try to produce them over the weekend, preferably word for word. I will also try to find any particular recent specialist academic encyclopedic entries discussing the topic. I know there are at least a few of such. John Carter ( talk) 20:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Can owls have red eyes, or is this just a case of camera red-eye like we see all the time in humans? — Soap — 18:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If you email was on I could send you that paper. Cheers Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping an old fellow out. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 10:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your help on Gospel of John. Dylan Flaherty has been reverting just about everything I do on this an other articles. Would you mind undoing his reversion so we can push towards something of a consensus? I think there are still real problems with the Gospel_of_John#Modern_critical_scholarship section and not much can be done if all edits are reverted. I have done about all I can without someone else at least ratifying the view that changes need to be made. RomanHistorian ( talk) 02:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I added you to the list, since you're clearly involved. Come join the fun. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I am writing to kindly remind you of 3RR. You have made 3 reverts to the Historicity of Jesus within the last 24 hours. Please refrain from edit warring. This is a good time to brush up on what constitutes edit warring if you need a reminder (see WP:3RR), and a better time to continue working out your differences on the talk page. Take this opportunity to reflect on and hopefully change your editing habits before you wind up blocked. Good luck.- Andrew c [talk] 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Some editors are wanting to restore the skeptical POV that existed on Gospel of John. I made a comment on the talk page on this, although am going to mostly stay out of this. You seem to know a lot about this topic, so I think it would be good if you could make some more comments on the talk page so we can get an end product that isn't as skewed as it was before. RomanHistorian ( talk) 17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your participation with the editing of Gospel of John. If you have a second, could you please leave your two cents over on the talk page of Jesus (the discussion on this issue is at Talk:Jesus#Disputed_vs._debated). Three of my edits were reverted ( here, here and here). I think they better reflected scholarly debate on the issues, and I am wondering what you think about them and if they should be part of the article. RomanHistorian ( talk) 02:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could look at two edits that I made here and here and tell me if you think they should have been reverted. They are pretty much the same thing, and were reverted because editors think Darrell Bock is fringe or an "apologist". I think the substance of the edits accurately reflects the nuances of scholarship on the issue. RomanHistorian ( talk) 14:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to put pictures in your talk page it needs two more brackets, so if you have time please fix it. NoticeQuest Do you wanna chat? My Contributions 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Hipocrite has agreed to mediate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-12/History of ancient Israel and Judah. As a listed party, please indicate whether or not you will join this mediation as an active party at that page. I am informing each of you that if you do not reply there within 48 hours of your next edit, I will interpret that as disinterest in taking an active position in Biblical-authorship articles. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You recently added a citation to a book by Alphascript Publishing to this article. Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source as the text derives entirely from Wikipedia; this is a circular reference. See WP:ALPHASCRIPT. I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed; many other editors have also been duped by these sources.
Another source to be wary of is the " Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International as their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [23]). Fences& Windows 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your photograph of a hybrid Trillium is quite beautiful, but I have some doubt about its identity. Viable hybrids between T. grandiflorum and T. cernuum are, to my knowledge, unknown in the scientific literature. A hybrid (even a sterile one) between these two would be of great interest to those studying Monocot taxonomy, since these two species are phylogenetically quite distant. Yes, even within the genus. To my eye at least, the subject of your photo looks like a pretty typical T. grandiflorum. Since this photo is in articles about broader topics in evolutionary biology, I encourage you to reassess its identity. I know I often have to double (and triple!) check my own photography notes from time to time! :) For more information on these stunning wildflowers, Fred and Roberta Case's book, Trilliums is a great read, by the way. DDennisM ( talk) 18:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to find a source for Schirach saying the he believes "The Internation Jew" was responsible for anti-sematic beliefs being spread. I have search through much text from the Nuremberg trials and found nothing mentioning Ford or "The International Jew". Please if you have a source let me know. p.s. holds no more importance than a school project. Jolly pepss ( talk) 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Why are you removing well referenced information from the tree article. the statement that palms are herbs is supported by references to two universities. Why do you feel it needs to be removed without even challenging it first? Mark Marathon ( talk) 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants! Just a quick note to say that I like the work you have put into tree, its really improved the article. Your name seems quite apt! Tdslk ( talk) 03:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to note that when you add an image to an article, you should always add an informative caption. Some readers using mobile devices or slow internet connections suppress automatic loading of images and need the caption to tell whether the image is worth looking at. There's also the issue of readers with sight issues. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Peter coxhead ( talk) 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Whitebark pine#Requested move to scientific name. — hike395 ( talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I see you started the Alice Whealey stub a few years ago. I'm wondering how you learned of her. Yopienso ( talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Hardyplants. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Hardyplants. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Lily of the valley—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. mettokki ( talk) 03:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Hardyplants. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article StudySync is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StudySync until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for this but, I'm terribly sorry, I cannot make it work at all and I can see no evidence that it's right. Can you please pop in to the article Talk page and help me/us/whoever to see where Ashington is referenced in your edition of the book? thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 01:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Also birthplace of Andy Taylor from the New Wave Band Duran Duran born in 1961. [3] What is Ashington? Oh I see your confusion is caused by the IP's placement of the text, there should be a break in there, because he was born at Tynemouth Victoria Jubilee Infirmary which is in Tynemout. Hardyplants ( talk) 03:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants. I'm looking at your photo in article Trillium cernuum. Since the shot is so far away, I'm having trouble confirming the identity of the plants in the photo. AFAICT, there are no pigments in the reproductive organs, which leads me to speculate that this might be T. flexipes, not T. cernuum. Can you tell me where in MN this photo was taken? If you have any other info that would help positively identify these plants, I'd be grateful. Tom Scavo ( talk) 15:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Help copy edit and add ref. Thanks you. Vomli ( talk) 07:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit to the Archytas apicifer article? CartleR255 ( talk) 18:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Because you removed content that can be referenced, I add two refs also. Hardyplants ( talk) 20:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
you will find that it is general information about Tachinidae and not specific to Archytas apicifer. Thus, it does not belong in the Archytas apicifer article. Please consider its removal or relocation. CartleR255 ( talk) 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)"The family Tachinidae is considered the second-largest in terms of number of species among all the diverse families of Diptera (two-winged true flies).[3] There are about 10,000 species worldwide. Many tachinid flies are economically important parasites of other arthropods. Several genera are robust and brightly patterned and many possess conspicuous bristles on the head or on the 4th to 6th abdominal segments."
If you want to remove the general information paragraph for the genus go ahead, I agree if the page was a larger article it would be out of place. Hardyplants ( talk) 19:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The Plantae Barnstar | ||
with love UMAGPR ( talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hemerocallis fulva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Propagation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure that whoever originally created the article ex nihilo (out of nothing, naturally) meant that it should treat creatio ex nihilo as its subject, but the choice of ex nihilo as the article title has meant that the lead and first few paras have to deal with distinguishing between creatio ex nihilo and the ex nihilo nihil fit idea. It would be much easier if the title were simply creatio ex nihilio, which in fact it once was. I've canvassed all authors who have edited this in the last month, (i.e., October 2020) asking for views. Achar Sva ( talk) 07:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -
Daveout
(talk) 22:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Murder of Samuel Paty; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GirthSummit (blether) 07:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to say it's nice working with you on Digitalis. We've gotten quite a lot done the last week or so! Some of these species are quite mysterious, no? Hard to find good info on them... I'm especially not happy with what I wrote at D. transiens - I need to redo that. It would be nice if I had access to everything - Hinz wrote a bunch of articles in French that look important, there is a 1980s Dutch work that looks very important, there's a Soviet work from 1955 by Ivanina that looks important, and I haven't been able to find anything from Maire. I do have Komarov's Flora CCCP, so can expand the article on D. ciliata.
Wikipedia is missing lots of plant species, but we'll get there eventually. Cheers, Leo Breman ( talk) 13:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I just saw your edit to Asplenium trichomanes and the terminology may be a little confused. The indusium doesn't bear spores; it's the flap of tissue that covers the developing sporangia and dehisces at maturity so that the sporangia can release spores. Choess ( talk) 20:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
What was actually unexplained in my revert? I reverted a disruptive sock per WP:BMB who added unsourced POV and also violated WP:BLPCAT by adding those names that don't identify as Dalit Christians. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 11:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the addition to tenuipes variety. Mind if I move the citation down to the refs section? I've been trying to keep them all together in this article. If you have more info to add on this variety or others, please feel free! We are working on getting this ready for GA nomination, and infraspecies is one of the sections in progress right now.-- Eewilson ( talk) 02:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that this is attributed to Linneas, not Lamarck
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43794506.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad0f6d30b92f81ac6ace114319c83c88f http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/16248
Sbelknap ( talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Hardyplants Please can I request that the Thomas Jefferson view on the Paul the Apostle page be deleted, as that view is older than the information in the edit I added. Thanks Adam Davis 83 ( talk) 17:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. -- rchard2scout ( talk) 07:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The fern article is problematic in parts, because it uses sources that pre-date the placement of horsetails within the broadly defined Polypodiopsida. It would be quite a major task to go through it, either qualifying statements that aren't true of both horsetails and traditional ferns or explicitly distinguishing between them. Anyway, Mauseth and other sources are clear that some horsetails do have limited secondary xylem formation (as did extinct members of the group). Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all your contributions to this article. It is always a little bit tricky when one finds that more than one person is contributing to a page simultaneously, but so far we have avoided colliding. I had just looked at this page recently and realized it was well below standard for an important taxon.
Since you have been focusing on Cultivation, I found something that might interest you. I wanted to verify some facts there, and came across this - The surprisingly interesting history of crocuses which explains how a paragraph got into that page. Obviously not a reliable source since there are no citations, but it is rare that one finds who wrote something here and when and why. Of course, like so much on WP, her paragraph has been plagiarised by countless others, since. -- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 04:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC
I also have a lot of mice, but have not noticed any plant damage from them - likely different species than you have. I have a lot of stories about mice, like the time 11 of them came flying of o a bird house I was cleaning in the fall, or when they they stole most of the Peony seeds I collected and had drying upsaters ona table and the moved and cached them in the basement of the house under some boxes. BUT I do have a lot of problems with voles, which eat Daffodils, Lilies, Hosta, and Astilbe. I am sure you are right about the rodents keying in on scent, but I have no answer how to deter them except the old fashioned way of planting them in wire cages. Hardyplants ( talk) 02:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey there thanks for the welcome, but since everything was reverted to an inferior state immediately, despite having been edited with respect to the existing text author, and adding a few useful yet concise snippets of information. Well, I guess it will be my last edit too. I hope someone got some kind of internet points. I will return to treating Wikipedia's occasional inaccuracies with mild amusement. And a blessing. As a writer on these topics, it benefits me greatly when Wikipedia is wrong, so no one can benefit from my research before I publish. Truth is I read Wikipedia mostly to see what the general population believe is true. So, all in all, I suppose this is a thank you note - specifically for quashing a potential writing distraction before it could start. Oh yeah, and I have this odd quirk where when I see impulsive folly (preferably salted with a result self-defeating to the project) so um... keep it up! =)/ Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.148.3 ( talk) 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how much of this would be left after a proper review, but I couldn't access the offline sources. I'll watch the PROD with interest. Meters ( talk) 00:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants
Re your message:
""Thank you for your work on Neoplatonism, I would like to also mention that you do not need to spend your time outlining all your changes on the talk page; It is generally only necessary if the changes would be challenged, and mostly done after a challenge, but I can not see that happening at this time. Thanks again.Hardyplants (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)"
You're welcome.
With respect to the outlining changes, thanks for the information. I was trying to keep everybody updated regularly so they know why I am making the changes I make. It also gives respect to the editors who have been writing on the page and watch the page. I will make the the updates less lengthy and less frequent.
Thanks for your support.
Regards
Daryl
Darylprasad (
talk) 03:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Britannica states " Such a position was approached in the philosophies of the 2nd-century North African theologian Tertullian, the medieval English scholar William of Ockham, the 17th-century French philosopher Pierre Bayle, and more recently in the works of the 18th-century German philosopher Johann Georg Hamann and the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. " The words "approached" cannot mean merely slight resemblance to the idea, as many people listed in the article besides Tertullian are known to have fully articulated fideism, it is clear that the article used it in a way to entail belief in the idea. -- ValtteriLahti12 ( talk) 07:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I have been wrongly caught up in your Twinkle revert on Black Adam (film). I didn't make this edit you reverted [24]. It was these two IPs [25] [26]. Please cross out my name from the edit summary, I don't want to get wrongly accused of vandalism. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 08:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)