User talk:Hamamelis/2010

     2010 ARCHIVE :

Rollback?

Hello Hamamelis, I noticed the vandalism you reverted at geranium just now. If you had rollback, you would have been able to clear the vandalism with one edit. I've had a peek at your contributions and you seem to be clueful and thoughtful, so if you're interested, I'll enable rollback on your account. Let me know what you think, :) Maedin\^talk 12:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maedin,

My apologies for not replying to you more promptly, and thank you for your confidence and positive statements.

If you can confirm that no harm is done if the only time the rollback function is used is when reverting 2 or more clear examples of vandalism in sequence, than yes, please sign me up. I'm only feeling cautious because, in reading rollback, I'm having difficulty comprehending all that it entails; for persons of a certain generation, the article is piled high with a sort of new-speak, and I don't want to slip-up and use it improperly.

Most sincerely, thanks again. Hamamelis (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hamamelis, no need to apologise, :)

Just to try and clarify some points:

Rollback enabled!

• yes, rollback should only be used when the edits are clearly vandalism. If you suspect that the edits may have been made in good faith or were an attempt to be helpful, you should "undo" instead. Rollback is often seen as a bit bite-y and it doesn't allow you to leave an edit summary of your choosing, so that's why it should be used for vandalism only. (Editors who abuse this and rollback inappropriately can have the tool removed; but don't worry, I'm sure you know the difference and won't have any trouble there!)
• Rollback can only be used on the latest edit(s); either a single edit, or a series by the same user.
• Rollback is useful even for single edits because it's faster than "undo"; it automatically clears the edit once you click "rollback", no more work required, :)

Hope those points help a little, and of course, feel free to ask anything, :) I'll go ahead and enable rollback; if for any reason you decide you'd rather not have it, then please just let me (or any other admin) know, and it can be removed in a jiffy.

As a side note, the rollback link will be added to the latest edit on every page history and also to your watchlist. I find the links distracting on my watchlist, and if you think the same thing, I can show you how to make the links hidden. Just say if you find that it gets in your way.

Keep up the good work! Maedin\^talk 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Maedin! Hamamelis (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Inedible Maclura

Hi Hamamelis, thanks for noticing the blunder that I made with removing Maclura from the list of inedible fruits. I was moving it from aggregate to multiple fruit and trying to straighten out a lot of false info about fruit, and hit the inedible fruits list by mistake (! must have been exhausted, or something!). They would certainly be an unpleasant mouthful! Nadiatalent (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Not that I've ever been tempted, but the unfortunate deer's example shows us the way. Hamamelis (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people might consider the deer to be an inspiration, but I am not one of them. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Multicolumns

Hi, Hamamelis!

You don't have to apologize for the inconvenients of your system...

I have some questions for you, regarding to your problems:

• There are different templates and different options to apply to these templates. So, we could use the proper one to solve your problems. But, is not very clear for me what is exactly the problem: the template columns-list crashes your system? If this is the problem, there are a lot of different templates that you could try instead a table, such as "multicol", "col-begin" and others.
• I changed your option "font-size" to "small" because I thought it was the recommended to indicate the authority of the genus. At least, is the most used along the Wikipedia, but maybe is not exactly the recommended, I'm not sure. So, you have problems to see pages with the "small" option applied? This is crazy, man!
• My recommendation is: revert my changes if you are actively working with this pages. I don't have any problem with that, of course. But, you should try to improve your system in the future, because other people like me is coming to apply this kind of changes, I guess. So, this is gonna be the real problem for you: the other people that is working following the same guidelines than me!! :(

I apologize for the problems that I caused to you (and for my english too) ;) Flakinho (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good!

Good luck and Peace ;) Flakinho (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Magnolia subgenera and sections

Hi Hamamelis, thanks for your comment on my talk page and thank you for showing your confidence. I have been contributing to a small number of articles in the English wikipedia in the past, and while my native language is Dutch, I always considered the English Wikipedia the most preferable version to work on, being the most concise one. In some cases, I later on provided for a translation in the Dutch version. I have recently become more involved in the Dutch project, and I'm working just the other way around now. Right now I'm working on articles in the category Magnoliaceae (loosely speaking: there is no formal category), concentrating on nomenclatural history and changes in classification. My plan is to add more technical descriptions at a later stage. My method is to give most of the information in articles bearing the name of former genera. For example the history of subgenus Magnolia section Manglietia is to be found in the article named "Manglietia". In the introduction of the article I comment upon the status of Manglietia as a genus. There are still some ten former genera that do not have an article, this as to give you a hint on how much work there still is to be done. And sometimes I have to do sidekicks when an important botanist appears to be missing (I did Dutch articles on Charles Plumier and Pierre Magnol, both significant names when it comes to the history of Magnolia) or when a botanical term needs to be explained (like basionym and autonym). I'd like to have my Dutch project finished before going on to the English Wikipedia and extract the information from the Dutch articles into that project. I'm not planning to redo the structure of the articles. I just plan to add paragraphs to the English article on Magnolia. Having said this, it may take some time before I will be able to direct my attention to the English version of Magnolia. - Wikiklaas (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts. Obviously, at this point, there's no hurry: we as editors in 2010 have a great luxury to have so much to choose from to work on, there is so much yet to fill in, all over. It's what keeps us all editing. Have fun and keep up the good work! Thanks! (: Hamamelis (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Plants decribed in 1855

Category:Plants decribed in 1855, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)