Loading AI tools
- If you leave me a message, I'll respond on your talk unless you request otherwise.
- I am an organic farmer and horticulturist in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
- I'm mostly interested in working on Wiki pages that are in my field, since that's what I know best. In particular, I am interested in entries on plants, plant pests, plant diseases, and organic horticulture and agriculture.
- If you are interested in bolstering the plant/horticulture/agriculture/agronomy/organic part of the wikipedia, I'd love to hear from you. This is all very new to me.
I belive i was unjustly blocked in wikibooks. you blocked me for adding table of contents things in the middle of books, however i added it to the end only. if you could find the time, could you please check on my case. i would never vandalize a page. talk to me! thank you for your time.
--zach 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely lean towards using binomials ("latin names") for plants, insects, etc. This is mostly because most plants have many common names, and common names often refer to more than one plant. Using binomials might seem contrary to the "English" nature of the 'pedia, but it's relatively easy to point pages on wiki. It's also just because folks "in the trade" (like me) frequently use binomials and generic names in spoken language, e.g. one is much more likely to hear "Epimedium" than "Barrenwort" (note which link is red there, LOL!).
I also generally use binomials accepted "in the trade", rather than the newer binomials used by the botanists. Again, cross-linking is the key.
Hi Johnny - it's made now: {{Horticulture-stub}} - MPF 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's also {{Agri-stub}} for farming stubs - MPF 22:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! -SB ("Stubs" are tags that are used for incomplete pages that need editing or additions...)
It's great to hear from you!
I guess most of my disambiguation link repair work work is directed around WP:DPL, and Bunchofgrapes directed me to Pepper which needed attention (so plants and things aren't my speciality). After my short stint at disambiguating pepper, I'm rather glad there are the botanically inclined (like you) amongst the wikipedia community - because those latin names and genus' etc are very confusing to me. List of plants by common name is an amazing piece of work! Unfortunately it seems to inflict the same response from me that I imagine a Triffid would.
If you think I can help you out in any way, drop me a note.--Commander Keane 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
There's a complete list of known stubs at the WP:WSS (stub sorting project) page we discuss new stubs before creating them, and asteraceae seemed to be a useful one, since there are about 80 to 100 stub articles on species in that family. The core motivation for creating the new plant stubs was that the plant-stub category included 11 pages of stubs (2200 of them) and was continuing to grow. That makes it too large for people to sift through, so new stubs were split off. All the subcategories of plant-stub are listed at the top of the Category:Plant stubs category page for convenience. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Johnny. :) Thanks for the note on my user page. It's good to see you here and contributing. Cheers, Madmagic 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
(see if that works)
Your welcome. I find it best to use original sources when possible.
I have done some research on mycorrhizal fungi. I just posted an article on the ecology of Trout Lily (Erythronium americanum) on a blog that I run and how it benefits Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) saplings through a mycorrhizal association. I am still working on other research about this but it should make a good Wiki article (there isn't one right now).
I don't know much about introduced worms, botany is more my specialty right now. I know that introduced worms are prevalent in North America but I don't know specifically what impact they are having. Do you have some information vis-a-vis worms and mycorrhizae? Atrian 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you trouble yourself to check out the external link? Didn't think so... The fact that baby carrots are exactly the same size and shape should be the first clue that they weren't grown that way. Denni ☯ 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise for coming off grumpy too. My morning coffee has not kicked in yet... When I was little, we always had a big garden, and my favorite was the "baby" carrots. As far as the article goes, I consder USA Today to be a reputable source, except maybe when it comes to unslanted political opinions:)
- I'm not sure if "baby carrot" is a registered trademark or not (more digging to do) but I found a confirming source at MSNBC - see the second link I've added to the article. It also agrees with what you say - "For convenience, some call them “baby-cut,” to distinguish them from real baby carrots, which are also sold as a specialty item." I'll add that disclaimer to the article. As far as a merge goes, I'd prefer it to remain outside the carrot article, as carrot juice and carrot cake are, but would not throw myself into a foaming rage if it should happen. (Could I ask you to modify your comment on the article's talk page if I've convinced you? Thanks!) Denni ☯ 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi SB - saw your notes at Talk:Potentilla and Talk:Mock Strawberry; you might want to have a browse of Mabberley, D.J. (2002). Potentilla and Fragaria (Rosaceae) reunited. Telopea 9(4): 793-801 (downloadable from here). Note the inclusion of Fragaria, as well as Duchesnea, in Potentilla. The conclusions are robust; it is only the "political" considerations to be overcome. I reckon we should follow Mabberley (maybe if not now, then when the new edition of The Plant Book comes out later this year) - MPF 10:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi SB - thanks for the note; yep, rejig means rearrange, reorganise, sort out. I use it in my edit summary when I've changed the order of sentences/paragraphs, but without otherwise making any other significant changes. Looked in NODE, it says "Chiefly Brit. Organise something differently; rearrange: the organisers scrambled frantically to rejig schedules". It doesn't give an etymology (and I'm afraid I don't know either!) - MPF 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks; whether disambig is the best tag I'm not sure, but I can't think of anything better. Same next for Fragaria? ;-)) MPF 17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea on Fragaria!
- No problem on Euonymus! - MPF 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi SB - can you confirm Eastern Asia for this? - it isn't in the Chinese Flora, but I don't have details for Korea or eastern Siberia - MPF 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi SB - agree with you 100%, the new genus cats are plain silly (I noticed them a day or two ago and had put them on my mental 'list of things to do sometime'). It is east - just start Category:Caryophyllaceae, Category:Amaranthaceae, etc., by pasting in the following text (change the family name as relevant) into the new cat: Genera and species in the flowering plant family [[Caryophyllaceae]] [[Category:Caryophyllales]]
Save page, and that's enough to create the category! Then you'll need to go to each of the taxa in the genus cats and change the cat in them to the family cat (that's the tedious part of it all!); they can be marked as minor edits; when the genus cat has been emptied, it can be deleted, or listed at categories for deletion (reason: over-categorisation) if you don't want to do it yourself. PS while you're at it, watch out for taxon names above the rank of genus italicised contrary to WP:TOL standards! - MPF 11:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- "I just use the {Delete|REASON} tag for that?" - there is a special [Categories for deletion] tag somewhere, but I can't remember what it's called, ah, it's here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Or let me know when you're done and I'll speedy them - MPF 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll do some later on tonite! - MPF 12:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done Amaranthus and Chenopodium. Wanna vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 8#Category:Droseraceae to Category:Drosera and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 8#Category:Nepenthaceae to Category:Nepenthes? - MPF 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Too right! BTW, good call on the Helleborus foetidus move, very true, the textbook common name is Stinking Hellebore (I'd never heard of the other name!) I've just added a taxobox and some more details to it. - MPF 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's an option, tho' I prefer to just do the re-catting; the other means someone else (usually an admin) has to do it anyway... PS check yr email! - MPF 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Too right! BTW, good call on the Helleborus foetidus move, very true, the textbook common name is Stinking Hellebore (I'd never heard of the other name!) I've just added a taxobox and some more details to it. - MPF 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done Amaranthus and Chenopodium. Wanna vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 8#Category:Droseraceae to Category:Drosera and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 8#Category:Nepenthaceae to Category:Nepenthes? - MPF 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll do some later on tonite! - MPF 12:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
On the comma - I guess it is optional, but I tend to see it as the comma separates different items; 'buttercup family' and 'Ranunculaceae' are the same item. If one had a list of e.g. 3 familes, with commas, it would look like six items: buttercup family, Ranunculaceae, peony family, Paeoniaceae, poppy family, Papaveraceae. Whereas without commas, I reckon it is clearer: buttercup family Ranunculaceae, peony family Paeoniaceae, poppy family Papaveraceae. But whatever you think is best! - MPF 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No prob. I can see that Brya's edits are the one creating improper formatting, deleting relevant information and inserting PoV, but MPF's unwillingness to properly justify his own reverts is not helping the situation, hence why I gave both a warning. Circeus 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I've speedied them all - MPF 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently added a few words (very few) to this stub you had created. I'm hoping that you'll take a quick look when you get a chance, and give me the benefit of your advice. Is the Hardiness zone info a useful addition, or is it just trivia that should be deleted? If you think it's useful I'd be interested in adding similar HZ info and links for a number of plants, but I dont want to be adding 'junk'. Thanks for your attention, and kudos to you for your many excellent contributions to WP. PS - you can reply here whenever you get a chance; I'll be watching :) Doc Tropics 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like the idea, actually, though it would be a good idea to cite your sources for that! SB Johnny 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks SBJ, MPF gave good input too. Rather than excise the info maybe it can be re-written a bit (and properly cited of course). I'll see what I can do. Thanks a lot for your help, and happy editing :) Doc Tropics 03:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
actually not really sure why I wrote this, I think I was acting like a crazy person ;) I shall carry on adding bits to wiki and shall be carefull how I reference, probally good practice for me to start doing that more often anyway. When I was at uni I had this problem about referencing your own thougths, it simply can't be done. What is the criteria for referencing yourself on here? I am thinking of things such as the taste of black radish for example, should this just be left out? - especially if it is not written elsewhere.
Ok quick revision again to this entry, I am now in total understanding of the wikipedia rules on referencing. It is an excellent resource and I am more than happy to be a contributer. If I get time I intend to share some more of my knowledge and will ensure that I reference it propally. cheers Andham2000
As I mentioned on my Talkpage I think the Hortobox is a great idea. Would you create this as a template, perhaps modeled after the Taxobox as you had suggested? I haven't worked much with templates yet but let me know how I can help. Also, MPF made some good points about the actual utility of Hardiness zones (they can be somewhat misleading), so perhaps we should include that info in the form of 'Temperature ranges' rather than HZ rating? In addition to temperature & soil/sun/shade, what about growth rate/life expectancy related info? just a thought...Doc Tropics 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- PS - I saw your note re: Brya. I know you didn't actually ask for my opinion, but...it seems like it might be time to request informal mediation from a third party.
- Hmmm. Next time I should research more before I chime in. You have tried third party mediation and moved on to RfC. Needless to say, I'll be following that process with interest. Do you think this will affect your development of the Hortibox? One of the reasons I was interested in Plant articles is that I thought they would be nice and peaceful...another serving of irony, anyone? Seriously SB, I'm sorry you're having such problems with another editor. I hope it won't affect the good work that you've been doing here on WP. Please let me know if I can help. Doc Tropics 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is better with the 'i'. I'm going to review the three areas that you mentioned (including the RfC itself) and see if I can add anything useful. Re your comment: "...packs of them running about, ducking under bridges, etc." If you're not careful people will start thinking you have a sense of humor. Once you get a reputation like that it can awfully hard to shake :) One of my concerns about the Hortibox is that a certain editor will decide it needs to be trashed mangled modified like the Taxoboxes apparently were. I am, however, undaunted in the face of such fears and prepared to march bravely forward, holding high our banner of Horticultural Truth. (ok, you may get a reputation, but when you do you'll find me already there with a smile on my face and a quip on my lips, ready to welcome you into the club). Doc Tropics 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again SBJ, I've just finished up the reading list; it took a while since I went into some of the archives and made a point of tracing certain threads back to the beginning. At this point I'm not adding anything to the Talkpages yet for a very simple reason: my "support" is worth so little it might actually count against you. Not only am I a newcomer to WP, but I simply have no formal education in Botany. I'm strictly a hobbiest with only a passing familiarity of the academic aspects. In other words, my credibility closely approximates 0 (zero). Still, I'll be happy to lend support on general topics like your "Hortibox", and do whatever 'grunt-work' I can (Once you have the new Box set up I'm looking forward to dropping it in wherever I can). I'm going to be watching the RfC closely, but haven't posted a comment there yet either. I might still do so, but to do it fairly I need to review the edit histories again and try to absorb a bit more. I Would like to direct one positive comment to everyone involved:
- This is probably one of the most courteous disagreements I've ever seen!
During my first reading of the edit-histories I was quite pleasantly surprised by the absence of hostile remarks and personal attacks, despite some very evident frustration. I think that this ranks as an excellent example of "How to have a meaningful dialog" despite the dissapointing results and apparent lack of progress. Good luck with your work on the Hortibox, I'm eagerly awaiting your results :) Doc Tropics 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work SBJ, I think it looks really good. I saw that for "Bloom season" you are going with the general 'late Spring' rather than with a specific like 'May'. I think that's for the best as it makes the info more widely useful. Along the same lines, I still have reservations about Hardiness zones even though I put that info in the article originally. If nothing else I suspect that using "USDA 3 - 9" will annoy about a billion non-U.S. wikipedians :) Seriously...how about calling it either "Minimum Survivable Temp." or "Temp. Ranges"? Personally I really don't care much what the category is called, as long as the info is in there somehow, but if we can forestall objections and possible reverts I think it will gain acceptance much more quickly. Overall it really does look great and I think it will be an excellent addition. Let me know what the next step is SBJ; I'm ready to go :) Doc Tropics 14:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you just love it when the banner pops up alerting you to a new message? Or maybe I'm just easily amused :) As to where the box 'belongs', I'll certainly defer to your opinion. I reviewed your history of the box design and I do think that your current version looks the best. What else were you thinking of tweaking? PS - somewhat ironically I'm alternating today between logging in to WP to check progress and actually working in my own garden :) Doc Tropics 16:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that was almost 3 years ago so I have no idea, but I imagine some vandal moved it to the ridiculous title and I moved it back, leaving a redirect in its place. I've deleted it. Adam Bishop 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This account has already been blocked for a week prior to your alert. Cheers. Lectonar 12:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You came close but haven't quite earned your cookie yet. You nailed the movie but not the character; it was someone else paraphrasing Ripley's earlier remark...try again? --Doc Tropics 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny - sorry, I don't know how it's done, but I'd agree it is one that should be. Maybe ask on the reference desk or something? - MPF 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, it's at WP:RD, though the one you actually want (i.e., wiki-related technical issues) for this is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (and probably the FAQ link there) - MPF 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Wha??? - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I do preview, although I have been known to miss something in the preview and see it later. What you are seeing is largely revisions to separate sections, or at times paragraphs within sections, which I prefer to do independently because that leaves a manageable amount of material. The article needs a great deal of simple editing and writing, in addition to the controversial stuff.
Two approaches may help:
- Look at what happens in Rjensen's edits and immediately after them.
- The underlying edit conflict involves the intro and the section on "Hamilton and slavery". Edits to the intro have no section marker, the others are marked. Septentrionalis 00:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The other approach is to treat an edit sequence as one compound edit; I don't think I've said anything major in the edit summaries that I haven't also said on the talk page.
If you want to know specific events, I may be able to find them. If a summary of the underlying edit conflict would help, I can try to produce one. I've been trying to avoid discussing it too much. For one thing, it's largely a matter of whether Rjensen correctly represents off-line sources; for another, I don't think any edit conflict can justify his incivility.
The fundamental question seems to be that moderate statements like Hamilton was an abolitionist or Like many of the Founding Fathers, Hamilton expressed detestation of slavery are not enough for Rjensen; he insists on putting exaggerations like Along with his friend John Jay, he was the most conspicuous Founding Father in opposing slavery. (edit of 12:34, 30 June). If such an expression of opinion belongs in the intro, it should be overwhelming consensus of scholarship (compare WP:Peacock); Rjensen has yet to find any source which actually says that. Septentrionalis 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: this has taken two edits, even though I previewed; I realized after saving that I had been ambiguous. So with the article. Septentrionalis 15:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you're still interested, I have added some comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rjensen. WP:Peacock was much discussed on the talk page; I believe long before I referred to it in an edit summary. Septentrionalis 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Any interest in topics related to helping people in developing countries improve their lot in the context of agriculture? Waitak 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - and first off, thanks for answering the RfC for List of tallest structures in Paris. I've just re-opened the discussion about how to name the article, even though I did the same before the weekend. You may note that anytime I ask for reference in this matter, discussion just dries up. The article will stagnate until a next attempt at correction and a subsequent 'pounce and revert' - still without reference. I've had to undergo months of this, always from the same very few who seem to be using Wiki to create an unverifiable world of their own on certain pages.
Frustrations aside, I would like to cut this as short as possible by sticking to fact - it is only normal that, if the present namespace is true, that it be possible to provide ample references attesting to this fact. As for myself, I can provide any reference needed - I have or have access to most respected reference works in both English and French. Without even that, official websites provide ample backing for my 'case', as I indeed do have one.
BTW, sorry about that earlier comment.
Thanks for your help in this.
THEPROMENADER 09:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny - it looked OK for me (guess it depends on what browser one uses). I've moved the commons and wikispecies links from just below the taxobox to near the bottom of the page (the usual position for them), see if that has solved the problem - MPF 10:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
JOhnny,
I just stumbled on your post here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#.22wikihow.22 I replied, but wanted to make sure you saw it before it slipped to the archives.
Thanks, JackHerrick 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers- I'm very new at this and that edit was something of a lark. Probably do more in a while. I'm no html whiz either. I put in the ref... Tahoe67 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to start a whole thing on gardening blogs. If you would look, I was setting it up and just started at that point. I had already added another article and added to another in the field by the time you sent me the note. Sheesh... I'll stop adding stuff now. Obviously, it is not wanted.
Hi Johnny - Moved. I've not edited the 'lambsquarters' redirect yet, as I suspect that ought to be a disambig (as far as I'm concerned, 'lambsquarters' is a joint of meat from a young sheep - it is completely unknown as a plant name here) (but maybe Fat Hen should similarly be a disambig to chickens??) - MPF 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I could not find the copy of this article Hard Freeze at wiktionary. Maybe your intent was to propose a transwiki to there? (Liberatore, 2006). 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I have changed the template to {{Move to Wiktionary}}, which is the template to use to request a move there (there is one such template for every sister project: Move to Wikisource, Move to Wikiquote, etc.) I may do the transwiki myself tomorrow, if I have time. Cheers. (Liberatore, 2006). 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny. Thanks for your recent help in categorizing and tracking the vandalizing patterns of Bobby Boulders. Dr Chatterjee 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your response. You mean you posted my complaint on my own talk page? And the only way I can get him to stop is that complicated process, which I don't know if I can understand. It sounds very hard. My Grandma is sick of Wikipedia and I don't think she will help me. Maybe my cousin will. I don't know. I thought people were supposed to be nice here -- because a Hindu guy sent me the policies just now, because he really is nice. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known that people are supposed to be civil. I guess this is not a place for people my age. GrapePie 00:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You see I normally type ca in the edit summary textbox and cat+ is autofilled; however, sometimes I end up doing it fast and just type c but "cease trolling" is the first thing autofilled, because I have the javascript pop up assistant (monoscript.js) and use IE there is a small delay so by the time I notice the mistake I have already submitted the edit. I know...--Eupator 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, you recently tagged the MusicDNS page with an advert tag. My intentions were not to advertise the service, but to provide useful information (since it was already linked from a few existing pages). Can you point out anything that could be easily improved about it? Feel free to respond here, I'll be watching this page. -- intgr 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was on newpage patrol, read it, and felt that it "reads like an advertisement", and so tagged it as such. Maybe add some history of the company (who, what, when, where, why and how), discuss it's signifigance in the field, etc.
- The ((advert)) tag is inherently POV, of course, since it expresses a reader's perception of the article. In this case I'm watching the article to see where it goes. There are other cases where I tag with ((delete|violates WP:CORP)), etc. SB_Johnny | talk 10:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Approximately two seconds after it was created, you tagged Matt Cavenaugh with a "notability" tag. I congratulate you on your ability to read the page and carefully consider it, select the tag, apply it, and save it in this time. Perhaps you will follow up on your tagging by specifying exactly what your objection is on the talk:Matt Cavenaugh page? - Nunh-huh 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I too have replied on the page in question. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since you asked for it, here's my advice: don't use tags. If you have a question about an article, place it on the talk page in question, or on the talk page of the person you are asking the question of. A tag says, "I don't like this article, don't care to identify myself, and don't want to take the time to actually delineate my concerns: instead I'm going to slap a tag on it and move on to my next victim." What you (apparently) wanted to say was more like, "I can't tell how important the subject of the article is from the information that is there. Could someone make that clearer to me?" And finally: any actor who has played a lead on Broadway is notable enough for Wikipedia. If the guidelines are being interpreted in a manner that contradicts that, perhaps they need to be changed. I also realize now that I misinterpreted the time markings: I had thought the time span between 20:59 and 21:01 was two seconds; in fact it's two minutes, which is slightly more reasonable. - Nunh-huh 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. Any new articles especially with "dotty" titles should be suspect. -- RHaworth 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all! I should have offered to do that... Good thinking :) - FrancisTyers · 00:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I was considering taking it up as vandalism, but I wanted to assume good faith. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
One word: YIKES! I blocked him for 48 hours. Thank you for the alert! --Woohookitty(meow) 11:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. I have a feeling that this is a disgruntled ex user. Those are difficult to deal with. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just blocked him and then protected his page. Read what he said. Just no place here for crap like that. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read pages properly before over-zealously editing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.107.234 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your support in the Barbara Schwarz controversy. You might be seeing me around. I am working on a Wikipedia "clone" sponsored by my church and I have been writing articles on plants, which I see is your interest. In the course of doing so I've "cross-pollinated" to Wikipedia. I did some work on the articles on Coast redwood, sweet potato, peanut, and some other plants. And also on Luther Burbank and John Muir. I also added the article on the Peace rose, which I thought turned out nice. I am learning a lot as I go along which is the best part. Thanks again.Steve Dufour 22:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny,
in Impatiens capensis you wrote as Linnaeus was under the mistaken impression that it was native to the Cape of Good Hope. Do you remember what your source for this statement was? It was questioned when I translated this into the Dutch wiki, and I have been unable to find a confirmation.
t.i.a.,
TeunSpaans 12:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You once put an {{advert}} on this article, and you were ricght doing so. The original poster removed it, I put it back and added an npov-message. The orginal author has removed both tags, but the article still has a strong pentecostal bias.
I am not active enough on the english wiki to know if such articles can be deleted, because the website is too unimportant for wiki to have an article. Do you know this? If not, could you please help to keep an eye on this article?
t.i.a.,
TeunSpaans 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think you might find this policy proposal at WP:RECALL relevant, and I would be curious of your comments there and on the talk page. Thanks! rootology (T) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I chuckled too. If you're an admin, check out that IPs contribs too... about 40/60% stupid vandal stuff. Maybe a 24 hour break... ;) rootology (T) 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know how to propose links to my photo pages. I know that it can look like linkspaming, but I've relevant photos which could enhance many flower articles (see www.wild-mountain.net). I'd already tried two weeks ago, but every links were deleted, surely because I hadn't add these links correctly (too links simultaneously, bad accuracy of the URL). Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Fruitos (talk • contribs)
Thank you for your reply, but I propose also data about flowers (such as habitat, altitude, flowering, ...). Wouldn't it be easier to share links instead of photos then information ? And It would avoid me to share photos under a GNU Free Documentation License (that's not my goal at the moment). I just want to offer images to help hikers to recognize a plant during their excursions. --Mac Fruitos 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't Radio Controlled Aircraft make more sense? RC normally means radio controlled, and aircraft is most commonly used around wikipedia, including radio-controlled aircraft. --PhatmonkeyTalk 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny - if I knew how to . . . actually, can it even be done?? - MPF 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You added a tag indicating that this page sounded like advertising. The original author has requested details on what might need to be changed. If you could add something to the article talk page, it would be appreciated. Rmhermen 18:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Johnny, I'm still pretty new at this whole wiki thing... I know on my discussions page you want me to add the copy write stuff. My question is how do I do that so I am able to use the pictures?{66.236.72.26 03:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)}
A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll take a peek. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. One thing I'd like to mention is the relatively low contributor traffic on English-Wiki French pages - it is for this that I am only one of a few who have noticed the error (and fewer who care to do anything about it), and also why one or two are enough to block any correction to it. Sorry if this seems a debacle, but low-consensus standoffs tend to get this way. If you'd look at my contributions you'd see that I've done all I can to generate traffic/bring attention to this what should be a quite simple matter, and I don't think I'd do this if I had even a chance of being wrong. Yes, my stubborness must be annoying to some, but giving up doesn't make things right. Anyhow, thanks for your comments. THEPROMENADER 00:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to ask you to take the fact of the matter into consideration - the "list of X in X" title, as it is, is neither factual, referencable nor encyclopedic, and this is the entire base for my "one-man" claim - that all the same does have the agreement of others. Please examine the fact of this, and should you see reason, please reconsider. THEPROMENADER 16:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I shouldn't do this. I transwikied some articles to wikibooks myself in the past, and when I copied the history over to the new article's talk page I had to take the {{}} out of my edit summaries in order to keep the page from being messed up. So, instead of lazily cutting and pasting the whole move to wikibooks tag from the article into the summary, I'll take the brackets out of the edit summary from now on.
And, by the way, the Move to Wikibooks template and category here on wikipedia have now been changed to Copy to Wikibooks (as well as Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook and Copy to Wikisource). The various links around wikipedia and elsewhere have yet to be updated, this will be done soon. --Xyzzyplugh 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi SB Johnny,
I will interest in the Wikimanual of Gardening project. Then, I colaborate in this project. Bailey's book was used for User:Womble to missing some encyclopedic articles. Now, it is listed in Hotlist of Plants. Some chapters of Bailey's book are very useful, and probably they can be used like a 1911 Britannica in Wikimanual of Gardening. After thinking about Wikimanual of Gardening, I will write about this again. In addition, I will try to finish the Gardening for the Million topics.
Best wishes, --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is regarding a discussion at Category_talk:Copy_to_Wikibooks, and specifically the wikipedia transwiki log. If an article has the Move to Wikibooks/Copy to Wikibooks tag on it, and you decide to transwiki it, you really should enter that on the Wikipedia transwiki log... unless you plan to finish the entire process yourself. That is, if you plan to clean up the article here, or have it deleted, or whatever. If, for example, an article is nothing but a cookie recipe, and someone puts the "move to wikibooks" tag on it, it would not be good for you to transwiki it and then just remove the tag, as this would still leave in place an article which doesn't belong on wikipedia. Frequently (but not always, of course), the Move to Wikibooks tag does indeed mean "Move this out of here and then delete it", and transwikiing it and then having it left in place is not good. The transwiki log for wikibooks actually is used, but it's almost empty now because most of it has been handled already. See Wikipedia:Transwiki_log/Archive5#Moved_to_en.wikibooks.org for a portion of the old archived articles. On the other hand, I noticed from looking through the wikibooks transwiki log that at times you just decide to transwiki articles on your own, which don't need cleanup but which you think would be good for wikibooks. There is no need to enter anything on the wikipedia transwiki log for this, nor of course is there any need to change the wikipedia article if it's already a good one.--Xyzzyplugh 15:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that there's no need to notify wikipedia at all if someone from wikibooks finds a good article (or 10, or 100) which they want on wikibooks, and never modifies it at all but merely copies it to wikibooks. As for wikipedia dumping garbage on wikibooks, you're right, this is a current problem. I think originally, there was an idea that wikibooks was going to contain every possible combination of books, instruction manuals, video game walkthroughs, recipes, how to content, everything. This is clearly no longer the case, but wikipedia hasn't noticed the change yet, and "move to wikibooks" continues to be placed on everything under the sun. If this is a problem for you all there, I think the way to handle it is to have a few of our policy pages here changed to reflect the current status of wikibooks. Template:Copy to Wikibooks could be given a paragraph briefly explaining what sort of content would be appropriate for wikibooks, for example. And, the source of the problem probably springs from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, the Instruction Manuals point, where it lists a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't belong in wikipedia, then ends with suggesting that this material could belong in Wikibooks. This has already been reworded somewhat; as recently as two months ago, the text was much more explicit in suggesting that all this "indiscriminate information" belonged on wikibooks. Hopefully the rewording will help, but at this point, I don't think it's clear to us on wikipedia what sort of text wikibooks wants, and what it doesn't want. Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks isn't clear at all to me, from a wikipedian standpoint. For example, food and cocktail recipes are accepted, and these of course aren't complete books but merely content which could go in a book, so what else is accepted? If you all wanted to write a brief paragraph or a page designed for wikipedians specifying what we should and shouldn't transwiki to you, it could help in keeping us from transwikiing total garbage over to you. --Xyzzyplugh 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- And something else(I'm long winded, it seems). Regarding Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Request_for_enabling_special:import, I had a look at that but I don't think I should comment there. Whether or not it becomes enabled seems to depend on internal wikibooks issues, whether you want wikipedians or your own admins to do the transwikiing/importing, how it will affect the edit counts. My input would be along the lines of, "Yes, please rid of us of our backlog", which I'm not sure would be too helpful. I could be of use in giving advice as to what needs to be done on the wikipedia end if import is enabled, regarding removal/adding of tags, notification in the wikipedia transwiki log, but I think that's not needed in the current import discussion. --Xyzzyplugh 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny - please do! - MPF 21:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you finish the interwiki, so I can stubify the article here and create the link to Wikibooks? --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 12:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason I reverted your edit was because you made it "potatoes play a part of"... I think the version now is fine. Thanks. JSIN 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny - sorry, but what you say about common names is itself a POV; many (perhaps more so on this side of the Pond, but far from exclusively) do quite reasonably consider that a common name can be cited as inaccurate / misleading / erroneous, if it is based on a misidentification or misunderstanding, etc. For an example, see e.g. Recommended English names for trees of Southern Africa (google cache as site appears to be down currently).
Your comment "Your continual insistence that Americans speak "improper English" or use words "improperly" is getting a bit tired" is a bit unfair; I take the same view on some inaccurate UK common names, it is just that by and large I don't bother to add such names to wikipedia myself and (as there aren't many UK contributors adding plant details, and/or other UK contributors also tend to follow semi-official taxonomically accurate common names) others don't tend to add them either.
One good reason to strive for taxonomically accurate common names is that a substantial proportion of the population have a mental block when it comes to using scientific names; there is nothing wrong at all with trying to educate such people into what is what by using common names which reflect scientific names. - MPF 14:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- ":Insisting that the use of an English word in one region is proper, while any alternate use in another improper is POV (NPOV is not "National Point Of View"). Noting that something is called by another name in this region or that is NOPV (in the wikipedian sense), but claiming that it is "incorrectly" called that is definitely POV. Persistently pointing out that American English is some sort of ignorant bastardization is not only POV but un-WP:CIVIL as well, if you stop to think for a moment. You've been edit warring along these lines for months now, and I just really don't get it." - That isn't what I've been saying or doing at all! - MPF 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- SB Johnny, good luck. I've been arguing with MPF along these lines for months (see Vinca minor for an example). Different species will have different "correct" common names in different regions (and sometimes more than one within the same region). I say put the article under Juglans regia and demote the common names to a discussion within the species article. I quite agree that "English walnut" is the "correct" common name for this nut in the USA and Canada (as much as any common name can be "correct"--an arguable proposition in the first place, in my opinion). I might also note that walnuts are regulated by the USDA, which recognizes "English walnut" as the common name. If that doesn't make it "correct" in the USA, I don't know what does.
- I have to admit to being curious, though: are they really called "Persian walnuts" in the UK, or is that yet another example of MPF trying to impose a single "correct" common name? MrDarwin 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Can't help you there... I'm a Pennsylvanian :).--SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got curiuos and decided to answer my own question. The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) website lists numerous common names, including "English walnut", without clearly indicating any one as preferred or "correct" (although "Common walnut" is the first listed); I also checked one of their recent print publications, the New RHS Dictionary of Gardening, which also lists several common names for Juglans regia (with "English walnut" being the first listed). So from where I'm sitting, it sure looks like MPF has unilaterally decided that there is one particular "correct" common name--"Persian walnut"--for this species, and has unilaterally decided that Wikipedia should enforce that name. My opinion is and has always been that to maintain a strictly neutral POV, an article should merely discuss which common names are in use for a particular plant in which parts of the world (and, ideally, how and why those common names became established; the common names are themselves quite interesting and informative). MrDarwin 17:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Can't help you there... I'm a Pennsylvanian :).--SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Johnny and Mr Darwin - been thinking about this a bit; it's going to need a lot more careful thought to be genuinely NPOV. The problem is that while my way of doing it looks UK-POV (or educationist-POV, to avoid national tags) to you, your way of doing it looks US-POV (or anything-goes-POV, to avoid national tags) to me. Because of the way we [Europeans, South Africans, etc] use common names, the current Vinca minor and Juglans regia pages now read as though we are being instructed to use American names for our own species (and presumably the F-16s and B-52s will be over soon to enforce that USDA regulation). I'm sure this is likewise not your intention, but it is how things are perceived over here; it is somewhat as if a UK-topic page had been converted from UK-'colour' spellings to US-'color' spellings against the WP:MOS regs. If everything else is similarly so treated, I fear that many people over here would regard wikipedia as just yet another vehicle of US imperialism and will stop using it; I for one would not particularly wish to continue editing wikipedia if everything has to be done to the US way of thinking.
- The differences in attitudes to common names probably date back to the strong educational ethos of people like Loudon and Lindley, who produced a lot of very popular books on plants (19th century forerunners of wikipedia??), where English names were largely formalised, deliberately chosen to match the scientific classification (in many cases, actually direct translations of the sci names). To them, and still to me now, names like 'Box Elder' represent a failure of education; fair enough that an 18th century farmer with no botanical education might call it an elder because it resembles Sambucus; the educational attitude here is that one should then point out to the farmer "no, it isn't an elder, look, it has seeds like a maple, so it is a maple"; thus Manitoba Maple (Canada) and Ash-leaved Maple (UK). Conversely, in the US, the tradition seems (to me at least) to be that whatever a redneck says is more important than education, and must be followed, even if what they say is based on errors of identification.
- I should add that it is of course not purely a UK/international versus US conflict, though there is some predominance towards that in respect of plants; some people in Britain favour the free-for-all, and some people in the US favour the educational style (and many do so with e.g. bird names).
- I think therefore that some better guidelines (maybe based roughly on the WP:MOS guidelines for spelling differences?) on how to deal with common names are needed. To treat all common names as equal when they are clearly not equal, is not NPOV; it would lead to page introductions like (assuming alphabetical order) "Bertholletia excelsa (Brazil Nut, Nigger Toes, or Pará Nut)", and people feeling forced to accept and use names they find offensive, inappropriate, or unhelpful. I certainly consider it reasonable to use terms like 'confusing' or 'incorrect' of a name when it derives from a misidentification of one plant as another, where the other plant has a much longer history of application of that name (e.g. Vinca being confused with myrtles Myrtus, Acer negundo with elders Sambucus) or from a misunderstanding of origin (Juglans regia being thought to be from England). In such, I definitely agree with MrDarwin's desire for "ideally, how and why those common names became established", but I consider it implicit that that would therefore indicate that such-and-such a name is confusing due to its origin in misidentification, etc.
- On the New RHS Dictionary of Gardening, it is not just a UK text, it had substantial international (including US) editorial input; I would think it is very likely that Juglandaceae was given to a US editor to get someone with good experience of Carya. While UK/US spellings were mostly edited to UK by the senior editors, individual article editors had a fair degree of freedom over name inclusions. I've never seen 'English Walnut' used in a purely UK text, and it would definitely be considered wrong over here, as it is factually incorrect; even more importantly, where the species is native, so terming it may well be considered an insult or 'theft'. In UK, apart from just 'Walnut', I'd say 'Common Walnut' is the most widely used, but in India (English-speaking country where the species is native, and therefore the usage it is most considerate for the page to follow per the MOS regional relevance guidelines), Persian Walnut is the favoured English name (e.g. . - MPF 14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- "They're not your plants, they're just plants" - I take your point, but wikipedia isn't read by plants, it is read by people, and people often have very strong attachment to and sense of ownership of their native plants, while having much less so to introductions. Look at the enormous ructions that happened (I think reasonably so, and support the Californian complaint) when one of my compatriots named California's largest tree after an English warlord who had nothing to do with the tree. That's why I think it reasonable to treat English names used where the species is native with greater prominence than those only used in cultivation, and to consign the latter to the ===Cultivation=== section of the article. The only exception to that I reckon is if a name used of a plant in its native area conflicts with an earlier or more predominant use of the same name for something else (hence my using Canadian spellings when writing the Manitoba Maple page, rather than Box Elder Sambucus negundo). PS spent the afternoon collecting 8kg of Juglans regia nuts in my local park - first time I've ever seen the species mature nuts this far north, a sure sign that global warming is starting to bite, and bite hard. - MPF 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Also, the old text said there were three stamens. I think there are 6. Have a look at the pix: commons:Tradescantia virginiana. Thats just one species of course, of which we got some uninvited but not unwelcome guests in our garden. But you will have to consult a decent Flora (Americanae?) to be sure. TeunSpaans 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was at the office, and read it that way, yes. It doesnt actually say it, but a careless reader might easily draw the wrong conclusion. So it is better to mention the six if we are sure that it applies to all species of the genus. TeunSpaans 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johnny - the problem with brackets is it makes it very difficult to read either measure, as the constant interruptions of the one by the other makes the text much more difficult to follow. Particularly so when there's a whole series of measurements close together as there were there. I've never liked books that try to give both like that. It would be nice if some sort of system like the refs cits could be developed, so it could run in parallel with it on pages with inline refs. Maybe metres <conv>feet</conv> .... <conversions />, with the conversions all on one line rather than one per line as with the refs. - MPF 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Thanks. Interwiki links seem to be weird on wikibooks... --Improv 15:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You sure don't read what you revert. I started the Neem article more than 3 years ago. I just corrected a serious lack in information and you went to revert that. Use your brain not the n-test. I'll leave it to0o you to put things back into shape as they were. I'm one of the first 2000 wikipedians. It is only that since two years I have been nearly completely inactive. All the best and I hope you straighten things out. I have no time. --Vanderesch
- It's OK. Thanks for correcting the naming according to naming conventions. I'm not following wikipedia closely anymore. It's running pretty well on its own even without my contributions. No one is indispensible. Good work and goodby. Vanderesch 14:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to note wikibooks:WB:RFI at m:Help:Transwiki as I only saw your message on Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/en.wikibooks at the very last step of the process menioned at the help page. Cheers, —Ruud 11:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into it. I have the subpage so pages in the category don't show up as orphaned articles though, which is my main area of concern. --W.marsh 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I disagree much with Brya with regard to APG. I still think the comments in articles about APG III, and particularly the characterization of the AP website as the "APG-companion site", as well as the references to APG in the Paleodicots article, were poorly worded, misleading, and did not belong in those articles, but do not rise to the level of vandalism. Clearly they did not jump out at any of the rest of us editors, although in retrospect we should have caught those right away.
APG II is incomplete in the sense that it has not included all genera of flowering plants, and there are still many out there yet to be inluded in any molecular systematic studies (and further complicating things is the fact that many genera are probably paraphyletic or polyphyletic as currently circumscribed). One valuable lesson from molecular systematics is that many oddball genera have been shoehorned into families where they don't really belong, and in many cases more or less forgotten; doing so has helped to obscure true relationships of plants, and has given a false sense that many plant families as traditionally circumscribed are well-defined and easily recognizable. (It's amusing to look back at pre-molecular cladistic analyses that included families (e.g., "Scrophulariaceae") as terminal taxa.) The unfortunate flip side of recent molecular phylogenies is that many families are now being resurrected or created that have only one or two genera, and sometimes only a single species. I quite agree that some (most?) of the opposition to APG II will be due to its creation of many new small families while abolishing many familiar and well-established larger families, and particularly when this happens on the basis of molecular phylogenies and no other source of data. At the same time, if that's where the phylogenies lead, classification can only follow. I only hope that the new taxa and their circumscriptions will be based on more than molecular phylogenies, and will take into account morphological, anatomical, chemical, and other characters as well. This is an exciting, if somewhat unsettling, time for plant systematics; I don't expect the dust to settle for at least another 5-10 years.
Regarding lateral gene transfer, this is indeed an issue and is addressed by including more than one gene in an analysis; this is one reason why I think the best analyses will included morphological and other data as well. Many of the early molecular phylogenies were based on analyses of single genes, but more recent ones are generally based on two or more and are generally much more robust (and it's encouraging to see more including morphological data). Rafflesiaceae is an example where the results of one analysis of one gene placed Rafflesia within Vitaceae, near Tetrastigma; this rather unexpected result was contradicted by analysis of several more genes that firmly place Rafflesia in Malpighiales. The idea is that, since Rafflesia is parasitic on species of Tetrastigma, it somehow acquired one or more genes from its hosts.
Finally, one of my own objections to APG II, particularly with regard to its wholesale "adoption" by Wikipedia, is that it represents one opinion among many with regard to classification at the level of family and order. Moreover, phylogenetic research did not cease upon its publication so APG II is already out of date. Many specialists in various families or higher-level groups, publishing before or since the publication of APG II, are using their own circumscriptions that do not match those of APG II. There are also competing classification systems, some being modifications of APG II and some quite different (the Kubitzki system is an odd hybrid, and only in part because some volumes predate APG and APG II). How should Wikipedia articles handle this, particularly with respect to research published since 2003? This needs to be discussed, but at the very least any article about a plant family will need to at least mention how it has been circumscribed in different classification systems, especially if those circumscriptions differ substantially. This leads to yet another problem with APG II: while it circumscribes orders by the inclusion of families, it does not similarly circumscribe those families by the inclusion of genera (although in this respect the Cronquist system and many others worked the same way). This is another reason why it will be necessary to refer to the work of specialists who are looking more closely at smaller groups. MrDarwin 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I fully agree in general, but specially with: "I quite agree that some (most?) of the opposition to APG II will be due to its creation of many new small families while abolishing many familiar and well-established larger families, and particularly when this happens on the basis of molecular phylogenies and no other source of data." Berton 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi SB, sorry I've been out of touch but I had to take a (very) long break to deal with some family issues. Great work on the Box! I only took a quick glance so far,and I've got a lot of catching up to do, but I can tell you've kept busy :) -Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet, but I'm having some trouble navigating A Wikimanual of Gardening. You had left me a specific link to b:A_Wikimanual_of_Gardening/Iris_sibirica which worked just fine, but from the Manual's index I can't seem to access anything except for the few words that are blue-linked. This was my first time trying to use a wikimanual so I assume I'm just missing something obvious...
- As a general note, it looks like you'll probably be transferring lots of material that will need to be "unwikified" and I'd be happy to help with the grunt-work. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for kicking off that debate on vandalism. It's wonderfully ironic since one of the reasons I hadn't helped with "your" projects is that I was reverting vandalism on "mine". I know that we can't expect the policy to change too quickly; the infrastructure and architecture of WP tend to prevent that. Still, I think you're helping us move in the right direction. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
...and I can't seem to log back in :/.
In any case, I'm editing under the name User:SBJohnny2 until I figure out the problem. If you want to reach me, please post on my wikibooks talk page: b:User_Talk:SBJohnny. --SB_Johnny | talk | books 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- No doubt the Admins finally caught up to you and you'll soon be perma-blocked for your nefarious deeds and wicked ways. OK, really...thanks for the links, that was perfect. I'm (mostly) taking today off, but I'm looking forward to working with you again. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OOps... Forgot to update: logged back in yesterday :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Eagle101
(don't ask). :)
...it's old news. Really old :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Why this way? Durova 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how to make a 1.0 banner. Thanks - Nathannoblet 00:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey SB, I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.
Thanks man! Sharkface217 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Justify Hitler's actions in World War II.
- Verify the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
- Develop a business plan for a sustainable coal-powered energy company.
- Project the exact world population of 2056.
- Quote PI to the hundredth decimal position.
- Type the Book of Exodus backwards and post to Wikibooks.
- Explain String Theory in Russian.
- List the title of every episode of The Simpsons.
- Solve the Monty Hell problem.
Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!
I don't know now... I think maybe I've been swayed by the opposition :) As I have done more reading on the policy, I'm beginning to see where the logic is. Just as an example, I've noticed a few places where I just didn't read close enough about the policy. On AIV, it does say that the vandals only need the final warning template, where as I was under the impression that they needed the full gamut. What are your thoughts -- still necessary? --Wolf530 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be glad to contribute. I am a chemical minimalist, and only believe in using chemicals that are readily biodegradable, and at the minimal dosage, and only when needed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged SB Johnny/sandbox for speedy deletion - I suspect you meant to create it as a user subpage rather than in mainspace. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 12:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Tonywalton | Talk 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 |
The Happy Cloud | |
| For having patience during his RfA, no matter how much people doubted him, I award the Happy Cloud to User:SB Johnny. Remember, it's what's in your heart, and in the hearts of your friends, that matters. |
--Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 14:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry that didn't go better. I tried to add support, but my efforts seemed to draw more criticism than anything else, so I kinda gave up. There's no question that a more focused effort at RFA would generate more positive results, so just let me knwo when you're ready to try agian :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 14:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a little twisted; a farmer/gardener who likes weeds? I feel bad that I haven't given you any of the help I had rather vaguely offered; I got a bit obsessed with Christmas and trying to shape up the article before the actual event. But I think that both the book and the essay are a great idea. BTW - It was nice to get a message that was rational. The last several posts to my page were from a POV warrior trying to redefine "Christian" to exclude everyone he doesn't like. <sigh> it's too bad ignorance isn't painful. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not an administrator - but I am interested in that second project of yours... --PaxEquilibrium 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! Took a quick look for a ref but couldn't find anything - MPF 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- "There were also attempts to control white pine blister rust by eradicating european currants, and a wheat rust by eradicating barberries..." - yep, I've read about those; I think the Berberis restrictions may still be in force, but the Ribes ones (which applied to all Ribes spp., not just European ones) were relaxed (not least because it is virtually impossible to eradicate Ribes successfully). "No-one will object, I hope, if I don't use that insane {tl|cite book} template?" - not me, anyway, I've never worked out any of those template things . . . "I think what I'm going to do is write about it on wikibooks, then transwiki it back to here" - not really sure what this means ;-) - MPF 16:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, think I got it . . . so if I sneak in an edit on wikibooks on Sunday . . . :-) MPF 16:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thought I'd put it here rather than there. The cleanup is a great idea if we can get actually action rather than the usual inertia. Got WP:AWB which I'd experienced here before. I've done a couple of runs alpha cat'ing the cookbook (az1568 also has it and has used it). BUT there is no policy - it's not a bot. An inexperienced & enthusiastic editor could cause havoc quite quickly (here it's vetted) but it would be useful for some cleanup stuff. Should there be policy/approval/guidelines? If I start using it more others may think it's a "good idea" - cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 |
 |
I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me! |
 |
- Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!
Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Oh my goodness -- I just realized I hadn't responded to your message from a month and a half ago -- deepest apologies. In terms of figuring out what to do with articles copied or moved to Wikibooks, I'd suggest just putting it on the Wikipedia:Transwiki log. As long as it's there, it'll get dealt with appropriately there -- eventually, of course, considering there's a huge backlog there. Sorry about the extremely late response again. theProject 03:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Yes, that category should be fine -- as long as there's some place on Wikipedia that lists all the undealt-with entries, we'll be fine. theProject 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that while other varieties or cultivars had compound leaves, A. negundo was the only species where it was a regular feature? Circeus 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You did a lot of transwikification, and I saw your name pop up in the b:Wikibooks:Transwiki log, but it appears this article doesn't appear there. Did I miss something? - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
