User talk:Hamamelis/2011

     2011 ARCHIVE :

Thank you for your help!

Hey!!

I am so happy that you helped edit my page. I was really struggling with the citations, and was rather mystified when it was constantly being termed "spam" by a certain other editor. I shall continue to improve the page, and am currently thinking of ways to make it more neutral.I am very new not only to Wikipedia, but also to cyber space in general, but I do think I could make interesting contributions to Wikipedia, once I get the hang of things. I do hope people will be as patient and encouraging as you have been. I have loads to learn, obviously.

)

Msarundhati —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msarundhati (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help if I can :) Hamamelis (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Hamamelis, I noticed that your recent edits to Thurso were all marked as minor, even though not all should be (per Help:Minor edit). It actually looks like most of your recent edits are marked as such, which may possibly be due to having the old default set, and not noticing. I've got this page on my watchlist for the time being, should you wish to reply. Tim PF (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim PF. Years ago, when I had a different user name which I later forgot the password to, I was thumped for the opposite (ie; not marking most of my edits as minor when they should have been). Back then I was a much less frequent editor, and the page Help:Minor edit didn't include as much clarity as it now does, and I interpreted it to mean (at that time) to mark an edit as minor unless you judged that your edit was likely to be disputed, either by a minority or majority of editors. As I now read the current version of the page, perhaps with more experience at editing under my belt, I would agree with you.

However, though quite well-intended (like the famous dictum about 'the road to hell' ), I never frankly thought marking edits as minor or not was a very practical idea, due to how many ways editors were likely to interpret such a subjective sounding term as "minor edit" (despite its having a help page), and how a few might even intentionally abuse it by introducing controversial or soap-boxing edits, under the guise of being marked as minor. That said, it is there, and I will try my best to do it right by it. Thanks and peace, Hamamelis (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that it is rather too subjective, but I think that the principle that simple spelling corrections, adding links (or unlinking), and similar gnomish changes with an appropriate edit summary can usefully be marked as minor. I certainly don't bother checking such edits on my watchlist from those editors I recognise as truthful, but I also check those who I know that mark them routinely, and then add {{uw-minor}} (or {{uw-wrongsummary}}, or {{uw-editsummary}}) to their talk page. The problem comes from the regulars like yourself, and then I wonder if I dare add a non-template comment, even though I've only been active here for 6 months. Oh, well. Tim PF (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it!! You did well to let me know. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Spruce Goose

Thanks for the note, and for your contributions to Wikipedia. As an INFP myself, I know you must be a good egg. :-) 108.67.145.90 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks, fellow g00d egg! Hamamelis (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Po river

I gave you an answer here. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Annona squamosa-Malayalam Name

Hi Hamamelis,
I just added Malayalam text. Please check the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annona_squamosa
Regards Ajaykuyiloor (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike

I went to create a disambiguation page at Specific name and thought, that's funny, there's already one there, which puzzled me until I looked at the page history... The redirect of "Specific name (botany)" to Botanical name was, I thought, a sensible interim measure. Perhaps Botanical name, a new article "Specific name (botany)" and Infraspecific name (botany) should ultimately be combined; I tend to keep changing my mind about this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the talk page could be wrong because we were both working on this article at once, unknown to each other. I've noticed before that if you have both the article and its talk page open for editing, then close the article and move it while the talk page is still open, the talk page gets copied rather than moved, I'm guessing because being open for editing locks it in the database. I would tend to blank the talk page (or an admin could delete it). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll find an admin, since I don't want to unnecessarily ruffle anyone's feathers. Hamamelis (talk)

"What links here" – whoops, there are a huge number of links to "Specific name". We should have checked this first. There are too many to fix, so I think that "Specific name" cannot remain the title of a disambiguation page. On the other hand, the previous situation was simply wrong. Not quite sure where to go now! (Well, except in real life, which is that I have to go away from my computer.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That was a worry of mine, but better to be bold then never accomplishing things. And I agree, the situation at "Specific name" had gone on way too long.
On the matter of the duplicate talk pages, I've posted on Rkitko's talk. When that is resolved, we can deal with the imminent merge, which I foresee coming soon after. Hamamelis (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe these could remain as two pages. The number of links to "Specific name" is huge, but not insurmountable. I will create a sandbox to list/link them all (there are between 700 - 800), and will try later to fix them one by one. Many of them were from users talk pages, which I don't see a point in disambiguating. I think this might be too big to stop anyway, as users will inevitably start creating new pages linking to either the ones for zoology or botany, and people will start to fix links on already existing pages. How fast, I don't know, but I think possibly very. There are a few/some pages that will want to go to link to the general term, though most would need it to be the more specific, one or the other. Hamamelis (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the sandbox with the list referred to earlier... Hamamelis (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(back again) Ok, I'll look at this. Someone who can run a bot could make a preliminary fix: any page with a link to "Specific name" and a taxobox with "Animalia", change link to "Specific name (zoology)"; etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Having worked through from V onwards in your list, I am now convinced that the change we made was correct. Although the zoological articles are almost all linked as [[specific name]], which gets changed to [[specific name (zoology)|specific name]], some of the botanical/mycological/etc. articles are correctly linked as [[specific epithet]], which I change to [[specific name (botany)|specific epithet]], but others are incorrectly linked as [[specific name]] which actually refers to the epithet, so I change this too to [[specific name (botany)|specific epithet]]. I haven't yet found a botanical article linked as [[specific name]] which actually does refer to the specific name, i.e. genus + epithet. So at least for botanical articles, these manual checks are needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You might want to regenerate the list because a bot has been fixing dinosaur articles (at least I've only seen dinosaur articles fixed so far). I've done from T onwards; perhaps 2/3 of dinosaur articles were fixed. Actually User:RussBot is fixing plant articles too... We should probably wait a bit. See my post at User_talk:R'n'B#RussBot_fixes_to_.22Species_name.22_links. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ... however

Thanks to Peter, RusBot, R'n'B, and anyone else I am unaware of, for help in disambiguating so many pages. But guess what: I'm afraid there is more ... Occasionally, apparently, I have moments of brain freeze, and don't see things as they really and truly are, because when I at first looked at the "what links here", I thought the redirs to the page didn't matter. But of course that's ridiculous, because they most certainly do (perhaps this also occurred to others); and so, have appended them to the list (though not nearly so many this time). Thanks so much again, Hamamelis (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't understand why "what links here" seemed to give a much longer list than yours, but didn't bother to try to work it out. I would re-iterate that I'm going to wait now until RusBot (property of R'n'B) has run a bit longer, because it is slowly but surely fixing a lot of links automatically. But we need to understand what rules are being used. I would suggest that you regenerate your list say some time on Saturday, and see how many are left then. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the main part alone, and just work on the redirs, if that seems like a good idea. When you say 'what rules are being used', I think you mean computer code rules, or some such thing. Should this caution me in editing the redir lists? I am only self-taught in using wikipedia's editing code, seeing what others have done and experimentation - not expert in any way. Hamamelis (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I do automatically write in computer-ese (I've done it too long); anyway R'n'B has now replied at User_talk:R'n'B#RussBot_fixes_to_.22Species_name.22_links. I would be pretty confident that most of the time his bot will automatically make the right change based on the rules it's using. It will most likely go wrong, I think, when the article is not about a species (e.g. it produced a circular redirect which EncyloPetey fixed at Botanical nomenclature). Ideally we would still manually check the change, but it's much quicker to check than make the edit, so there's no point in editing a page which the bot would have done for us if we waited. I understand that RussBot will automatically edit any page with a link to Specific name, whether direct or indirect. So I'm suggesting that we wait a bit (Saturday? Sunday? no sure how quickly it works); check some that are done (so don't get rid of your original list) & if they seem right, generate a list of those left and work on those. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying: The long and short seems to be, first: for me to Leave the List Alone!, which I get. Second: Regenerate it later. I actually did take a quick look when I made the redir additons, but, luckily, did not erase what RusBot edited - I can assure you that that part is now already considerably smaller. Third: RusBot is probably making mostly accurate edits; I think so, but a number of them I looked at infer implicitly the epithet, while calling it the specific name (Genus epithet), as you mentioned above. I didn't change them (or, I think I left them all alone - I may actually have changed a very few but can't remember just now). Thanks for the explanation, Hamamelis (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see now RusBot has finished! I have to sleep now, so will figure it out later. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bambusa vulgaris

Thanks for showing interest, and that when I started thinking I'll have work alone for the most part. Since you are more of an expert and have more exposure to Wikipedia traditions in the area, please, take another look. I may have overlooked a lot and done it poorly. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not so much an expert botanist, but I can help with the page. I am about to go to bed, but later I will post to either your talk page, or to the talk page of Bambusa vulgaris. Please watch there, happy to assist! Hamamelis (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good news. I have just stumbled a cross a book with a gold mine of info on B. Vulgaris. Hopefully, this article is going to be decent now. And, thanks for all the help. Please, continue to keep an eye on the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Specific name and epithet

Why are you saying that "specific epithet" is more accurate than "specific name" for animals? Article 5.1 of the ICZN ([1]) itself says "The scientific name of a species, and not of a taxon of any other rank, is a combination of two names (a binomen), the first being the generic name and the second being the specific name." Ucucha 15:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I originally thought it was the same for zoology as it was in botany, and then realized it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which prompted this conversation. In my more recent edits I only changed it to epithet where I thought there was confusion in the text of the page between the whole name (Genus species), and the one part of the name, often the epithet (very few pages had this confusion). It seems that the term "epithet" is used interchangeably with "specific name" in zoology, so hopefully no harm has been done to the text of the articles by having changed it to epithet. Please let me know if this is causing a problem, and I will do everything I can to rectify it. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the ICZN never uses the term "epithet" at all, though it's certainly used in zoological papers and there seems little point in saying that it's inaccurate. "Specific name", which is used in the Code itself, is probably preferable, but I don't think there is a need to go around changing either term to the other.

Thanks for fixing all those dab links! Ucucha 15:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha. As I said, I stopped doing it (some hundreds of edits ago, now). I agree that what I thought was me being 'more accurate' was, for zoological articles, me appearing to be just more fussy. In botany, it would be more accurate, though. Glad it didn't harm the text. If you find any of my edits where I am wrong, I'm always glad to have it pointed out to me. Thanks again, Hamamelis (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Specific names

Quite a pickle there. Historically bacteria were plants and bacteriology still retains some botanical rules and habits. Regarding "specific name", it refers to both the genus name plus specific epithet, like in botany so is more correct specific name (botany). I just double checked the bacteriological code (<ref>{{cite pmid|21089234}}</ref>) and it is so. I did not know that about specific name in zoology — Thanks for pointing me to it. --Squidonius (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorbus fosteri

Hi Hamamelis, what a lot of searches you made trying to track down that name. I was wondering if the name is perhaps about to be published, and the nursery is using it in a way that they shouldn't (if they put that on paper, they'll make a nomen nudum), or perhaps has been published in a document so obscure that no trace of it appears online. With that hypothesis, MF96072 might be a specimen number, collected by Maurice Foster (perhaps in 1996); herbaria often use that sort of coding. Even if it is a Maurice Foster number, it might refer to a nursery plant rather than a pressed specimen, and that wouldn't work for a scientific description. The book you found is amazing, I'd guess that if someone orders it they'll publish what they gather from the web and put that cover image on it, absolutely bizarre. The user who made the page is hard to keep up with, I find Nephtheis fascicularis particularly amusing on the list you point to (so which is it, a palm or a pineapple?). I've moved Psuedaxinella lunaecharta to Pseudaxinella lunaecharta and worked on the spelling a bit, but crikey. Most of the pages aren't plants, so perhaps complaining that the user should check IPNI is unwarranted ... Nadiatalent (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So, it sounds like you are saying we should just leave it alone for the present, but what a mess! I think it should at least be tagged as questionable (after I find the right tag to use). Otherwise we should just take a wait-and-see approach. Thanks for the explanation of the herbaria specimen numbers (thought it might be something like that), Hamamelis (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What a mess indeed. Your solution seems to be a good one. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

An update: I've moved Pseudaxinella lunaecharta to Dragmacidon lunaecharta, following the WoRMS database. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Hamamelis (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Hi Hamamelis, glad you like the new page! (I'm wondering if anyone will delete it or propose merging it to the old page, which I think would be quite messy.) Nadiatalent (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think that the present situation is very messy, because all the wikilinks go to an article which now has an out-of-date title. However, I'll raise this issue where a wider discussion is likely. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

David Childress talk on Jonah

        I love the History Channel, watch it all the time.  I just could not believe that one of your most respected journalist could get his information so incorrect.  People with hardly any education watch your show.  Please research your Bible information better.
     Mr. Childress said, "Johah could not have been swallowed by a "whale".  "The stomach juices would have desolved him in the time he was in the "Whale".  1. The King James Bible states that,"The Lord "Prepared" a great "Fish".  (It does not mention Whale.)
     2.  Jonah was spit up in a special spot.  
  I know Mr Childress is not a Bible schollar, but have him read Jonah 1:17- Jonah 2:1-10.

Thank you for your time in this great show. It is an education just to watch it, but I will check it out more often. Shirley Blackman - shirleyblackman78@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.113.58 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this is all about. I have made no edits regarding any of the subjects you allude to above. Perhaps you meant to leave this message elsewhere. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Stolon and sporangiophore

On the Stolon page you questioned whether Sporangiophore should link to Sporangium. That page doesn't cover the matter adequately at present. They are rather different concepts, and could justifiably have separate pages. What would you think of delinking? Nadiatalent (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Commelina species

I did feel a bit guilty about just flagging up that the List of Commelina species only went up to "j", without doing anything about it, so thanks for extending it to "m"! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only changed one letter! The real credit belongs to Circeus. Hamamelis (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have checked the history more carefully! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Hamamelis/2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Wikimedia Stories Project

Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco working on collecting unique and interesting stories from Wikipedians that can be used to compel donations for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your user name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago

If you are interested in participating, and would like to schedule a telephone or Skype interview with me, please send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) along with any questions or concerns you may have.

Thanks for your time!

Victor, User:Victorgrigas Victor Grigas (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

Categories

Hi, I think that we might have to give up on categories altogether: Category "Fruit" is being removed from a slew of pages and I've no idea why or where to find an explanation (if there is one). Perhaps the dehiscence category will have to become just a mention that the plant in question has dehiscent fruit. Somewhere I think that I saw a statement that "list of" pages are also disapproved of (if they hit List of botanists by author abbreviation, I'm going to be quite annoyed). Nadiatalent (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I was the editor who removed a huge number of species for [[:Category:Fruit]. An explanation for my reasoning is on may talk page. The way I see it is that everything on WP should be done for the reader. They come here in their millions. Some of those readers may want a list of trees that have fruit (in a category or as a list page) but the vast majority just want to find about about a banana or a melon or suchlike. As for "them" it is really "us", ie. the community, that determines what happens around here.

The preceding unsigned comment was left by Alan Liefting 4 hours and 21 minutes later than Nadia's, on December 17, 2011

Alan, I'm sure you mean well, but you are expressing your point of view, not that of the "reader" at large, "editors" at large, or anyone else (nor can any of us rightly lay claim to such). I am an editor, but a reader too. Your opinions are valid, but they are still yours, not anyone else's, so I recommend you make more of an effort to discuss things prior to making major changes. That, to my mind, is the best way to gain consensus.

I don't have the time or energy right now to argue the merits of the categories in question, as I have a lot going on chaperoning visiting foreign students from a program I'm involved in called Christmas International House, and will be mostly unavailable until January 2nd. So, if the categories die an untimely death, I will have to leave it at that for now. Hamamelis (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. You've been removing Category:Trees from numerous articles without ensuring that they are in an appropriate subcategory. I could find no suitable reason for removing all tree species from the category, since uers (like myself) will expect to find tree articles either in Category:Trees or one of its subcategories. I could find no discussion on the issue, nor did your edit summaries provide a rationale. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a wake-up call to me. For a long time I've seen category changes on my watch list and ignored them on the assumption that a deleted category was being replaced by some well-considered replacement category, and have concentrated on other matters. Fighting this would unfortunately be a full-time occupation for at least one person!

Have a good break Hamamelis! See you in January. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting now has "retired" on his pages. Like others, I'd noticed the changes to pages on my watchlist, but hadn't done anything. Sigh... When I look at those graphs at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Pie charts and graphs, I'd like to know how many of the edits by people who don't make many are simply ones that more regular editors need to undo. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)