User talk:Nadiatalent/Archive 2

French hawthorns

Dear Nadia Photos or flowers themselves (dried in some silica gel?) shouldn't be a problem, as my colleague is restoring a derelict farmhouse just down the road at Gorron, which he visits monthly from England. Failing that, I have a French elm colleague at Cemagref who could no doubt be persuaded to make a detour on one of his routine visits to the French state forestry nursery in Brittany. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I advise you to be careful.

Hello, Nadiatalent. You have new messages at Zhang He's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Zhang He (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don'f find

Pear

I don't find the doc, so yes delete the line. But, this information can be found, if you search. If you read french : [1],[2] Vincnet (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

revert

"A pepper growing inside a pepper is a type of parthenocarpy, which is the formation of fruits without fertilization or the formation of seeds."--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

List of berries providing protection against carcinogenic chemicals

Re [3] and [4].

I think we should follow WP:MEDRS. While the berries were added to this list, the research is preliminary and hasn't been demonstrated applicable to humans. Because of where it's presented in Rubus occidentalis, I think it's only a minor WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS problem. But because it was added to a Nutrition section in Garden strawberry, I've removed it again. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I think the content misrepresents the source as well as having SYN and MEDRS problems, so I've removed it from Rubus occidentalis. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Garden strawberry article

Hi. I agree with your reversion of this edit to the Garden strawberry article. I also agree it was appropriate to leave a message for the editor on his talk page at User talk:Faustus37/Archives2010/July#July 2010. I think, however, that a spam2 template was probably a bit too much -- take a look at Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

Note that I'm just giving you my opinion and the wikilink I've cited goes to an essay, not an official guideline or policy.

It looks like Faustus37 is working on a (hopefully) improved Wishnatzki Farms article at User:Faustus37/Sandbox.

Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye out for inappropriate links. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Garden strawberry article

Hi. I agree with your reversion of this edit to the Garden strawberry article. I also agree it was appropriate to leave a message for the editor on his talk page at User talk:Faustus37/Archives2010/July#July 2010. I think, however, that a spam2 template was probably a bit too much -- take a look at Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

Note that I'm just giving you my opinion and the wikilink I've cited goes to an essay, not an official guideline or policy.

It looks like Faustus37 is working on a (hopefully) improved Wishnatzki Farms article at User:Faustus37/Sandbox.

Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye out for inappropriate links. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed working on an improved article which will be moved over shortly. In that improved article I mention Wishnatzki Farms produced 30 million pounds of strawberries in the 2010 winter growing season alone. It is the largest single producer of strawberries in Florida per multiple third-party sources. Based on 2008 production numbers already in the Garden strawberry article, by my calculations by itself it produces around one percent of all strawberries commercially grown in the United States. I suspect only a handful of the largest California-based growers can also claim that. In short, Wishnatzki Farms is a major player in the US strawberry industry. Consequently it deserves at least a mention, and an (internal) link, in the article. Apology in my talk accepted, but I respectfully disagree with the edit. Next time rest assured I'll cite it. Faustus37 (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rhus coriaria previously deleted

Hello, I wanted to start a page about Rhus coriaria, the species and the spice that comes from it, but apparently a page with that name has been previously deleted by you. As far as I can see the content of that deleted page is no longer accessible, so I can't see if it was garbage. Could you let me know what you think about this? Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The entire contents of that deleted page were the three words:

rhus coriaria cultivation

So it was deleted for lack of content/context. Feel free to write an actual article about the subject. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

New Article

Please review the new Wikipedia article on a Canadian researcher of botanical biology, at Nadia Talent. Critisizer (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for what was undoubtedly a well-intentioned gesture. But please delete. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've requested that it is speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 - no offence but you aren't notable. Smartse (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

carolina lily/turks cap lily

I am not a professional botanist but i believe these are two different flowers. the the turks cap lily is the lilium superbum, which has a separate article identifying it as "turks cap lily." Furthermore, a quick search of "turks cap lily" turns up a number of websites identifying it as "lilium superbum": the USDA Jefferson Davis Community College The Connecticut Botanical Society OSU College of Health and Human Sciences The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at UT Austin as well as a whole host of less respectable sounding websites including [5] which provides a distinguishing feature, namely that Turk's Cap can have up to 40 flowers - though it is unusual - while Carolina Lilies have no more than 6. None of the sources revealed through a thorough internet search identify the turks cap lily as the lilium michauxii.

I am going to revert the edit. I recognize that you have provided a citation which is from a book. However, I do not have access to it (this does not diminish its credibility, it is certainly a very creditable source, but I simply cannot confirm it). Furthermore, it is over 30 years old, which does somewhat diminish its credibility in comparison with more recent reputable sources. Finally, 100% of the other evidence, including a number of respectable governmental and educational resources, goes the other way. Not to mention my personal experience--admittedly I'm from NC so "Carolina Lily" would tend to be more widely used even if there were multiple common names. However, i think the sources show that the flowers are similar but distinct and that one is correctly named "turk's cap" while the other is correctly named "carolina."

If some evidence does show that it is the case that both flowers are correctly called "turks cap," I think that this should be noted lower in the article with a disclaimer stating that turk's cap is more usually understood to refer to lilium superbum and not lilium michauxii to avoid confusion. Or, in any event, perhaps a note that the lilium michauxii and the lilium superbum share a close resemblance and are sometimes mistaken for one another. Best, InspectorTiger (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

hairy root culture

Hi, thanks for your message. Well, I just read today the info of hairy roots and decided to improve it a bit (with my ideas). I did not want to change it completely as it should be a general info. I have read all of the mentioned paper and feel that some new papers on the field are better describing the recent trends. If you do not like my changes, please fell free to restore. That's my vision! 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biologist5 (talk • contribs)

Barnstar

	The Working Woman's Barnstar
	Because even though you aren't notable, your contributions here are valuable. Thanks for your edits and keep up the good work Smartse (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually delete the page myself, but if you ever need it done again, you can request deletion through the various methods at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Who knows, maybe one day you will be notable! Smartse (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not notable either. I thought had notable articles, but I was wrong. Wxidea (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mimulus guttatus

Hi Nadiatalent; I wonder if you'd be kind enough to have a look at the discussion at Talk:Mimulus guttatus, please? Your thoughts, if any, would be welcome. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Mimulus guttatus. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

• Please do not restore edits of blocked sockpuppet users, especially such edits that are unsourced and not backed up to any reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, as you did at the article Populus. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rosa pages

Hi Nadiatalent, sorry to not have detailed more on Rosa species edits. Primarily my goal was to link articles to the specific cats. for "Cat:Flora of country/region" - "Cat:Garden plants of continent" - & "Cat:Vines," as appropriate. Was especially focusing on semi-orphan articles & native plants of western North America. Please let me know of any mistakes. Thank you---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)