User talk:Pekinensis

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 21:48, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

no latin1 chars problem

See [1]

Opuntia photo

Hi John,

Just curiosity — where was that photo taken? It made me miss Tucson.

Thanks, Pekinensis 15:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My parents' backyard, in Vail if that means anything to you. I was just down visiting them for the first time for a week recently, and got a digital camera for a birthday present, so I went a little crazy with taking pictures meant largely for Wikipedia. ;) Once I get done identifying everything & cropping & resizing, there'll probably be a couple dozen more Opuntiæ photos, and another couple dozen of other cacti & desert plants. You can see a pretty complete list at my trip photo list. - John Owens (talk) 22:52, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Kale

You are correct in your assessment - an editted redirect is not a valid destination for a move. You are also correct that the rename is the right thing to do. The intermediary step is what you botched. Don't bother with it. I've fixed things up for ya. - UtherSRG 18:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Amaranth

Done. Give it a peek and polish it up. --DanielCD 20:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Regions

I've been on wikiholiday for the past few months and so I didn't see your post. I've been wanting to remove Hawaii ever since WhisperToMe placed it there. The terminology widest interpretation pre-dates my arrival at wikipedia but was appropriated and used by myself and other editors of U.S. regions articles. The hierarchy of terms: always, sometimes, and rarely evolved out of previous article practices and were "formally" institutionalized by WikiProject:U.S. Regions. Unfortunately, the project has largely been a failure, successful in instituting a hierarchy which is largely irrelevant but has not been successful in creating articles which discuss regions from a NPOV, stereotype free, view. Two major polices have been misundrestood 1. broadest interpretation; this was used to justify the inclusion of Hawaii and 2. the use of the Census Bureau Regions as the standard interpretaion of regions when, and only when, one is necessary. Misinterpretation of this policy, or rather a rejection of misinterpreted policy, has lead to the subversion of the U.S. West article and creation of the American West where only one article is necessary. I'm sorry to ramble but I've been so frustrated over these problems. If you are interested in helping reform the WikiProject, please contanct me via my talk page. I have also posted a suggestion on the Southwest talk page regarding your changes. -JCarriker 01:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

zh-stpl

Hi, Is it necessary to invent a new template zh-stpl? It doesn't seem that it would be used all that often, and you could just use:

{{zh-stp|s=...|t=...|p=...}}; literally "abcd"

Otherwise, we could have templates for zh-stpP for Postal pinyin, etc. and the number of templates would increase to an unmanageable point. Probably even the "w" templates with Wade-Giles were probably overkill.

-- Curps 18:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In general, the cost of an additional template is low, and they often have benefits in maintaining consistency, improving readability of the markup, and generally separating content from presentation. I created the "Chinese literally" templates in particular to treat the inconsistencies — quotes vs. no quotes, literally vs lit., et cetera.

Pekinensis 20:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Miner's lettuce

Thanks for moving it to the taxobox! I'm a bit of a newbie at botany articles, so didn't think of it. I'm busy picking through various photos I've taken of native California plants to upload. I suppose the caption should say something like "the plants with the round leaves, with a central stem ..." The stuff tastes pretty good, by the way. :-) Happy editing! Antandrus 04:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maize terminology

Discussion moved to Talk:Maize

image copyrights and locations

I notice you've uploaded lots of useful images, including one for okra. It would be nice to have these in wikicommons so that they could be used in wikibooks too. I hope it isn't too much trouble to move all the images. — AlbertCahalan

Good idea. I'll get an account over there when I have a moment, although I think I've only uploaded two or three images. — Pekinensis 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pork rind merge

Thank you for doing the Pork rind/Chicharrón merge. If I had tried to do it, I know that I'd end up spending hours trying to improve the article as well, so that's the reason that I posted it at WP:DA instead. I'm not sure why, but I seem to be finding more duplicate articles lately, or maybe I have just learned how to look for them. BlankVerse ∅ 16:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid mission creep at all costs. — Pekinensis 17:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drumstick (disambiguation) page

I think I understand your intent in paring down the Drumstick (disambiguation) page, but it seems to have lost some information in the process. In particular, when a particular term is not notable enough to have its own article, and where the disambiguator doesn't really tell you what is going on, e.g. drumstick (poultry), it seems to me useful to have some additional information, at least until someone actually writes that article -- and in fact it may not deserve its own article, but only part of "chicken parts" or "chicken cuts" or something. Are there also going to be articles on thigh (poultry), dark meat (poultry), etc.? --Macrakis 17:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking, but I do like to-the-point dab pages. I don't know if there could be an article for each of those things, but I wouldn't want to rule it out either. There should be material on cuts of poultry, if only as a section in Poultry. What do you suggest? — Pekinensis 20:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Names for Jewish Chinese

Can we get a source for the Lanmao Hui? Pretty interesting addition! ~ Dpr 02:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my source is the old man who runs a little shop around the corner from where the Kaifeng temple used to be and keeps a box of related memorabilia. A google search yields only one hit, in Japanese. I know no Japanese, but looking at the pictures and the kanji, it does seem to offer some corroboration. — Pekinensis 16:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is confirmation at zh:犹太人. — Pekinensis 15:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lupine

Lupine may be spelled "lupin" in some countries, but it is spelled "lupine" in others, such as the U.S. It'd probably be better to respect local variations in this matter. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems a bit silly to use a piped link to enforce national spellings (and you could have saved yourself some typing with [[lupin]]e instead of [[Lupin|lupine]]), but as long as the link is disambiguated, feel free to spell it as you wish.

You might like to have a look at Austin Creek State Recreation Area, Regional Parks Botanic Garden, Cofrin Memorial Arboretum, American Black Bear, and Singing Vole, which also treat North American topics, and in which I performed the same disambiguation. — Pekinensis 15:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how or why that spelling came about. It's still pronounced "lupin", which is very confusing to budding botanists. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vegetable-stub

Hi - just thought you'd like to know that {{vegetable-stub}} has been created! Grutness...wha? 3 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

Excellent! — Pekinensis 3 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

Template:User 0

Hi Pekinensis,

I was wondering how you have "no native language", that doesn't really make sense to me. Thanks. Please reply on my talk page. --Hottentot

Reply was: Because I have less than native-like proficiency in my first language. — Pekinensis 9 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Kovatch

Both you and I have tagged Kovatch for speedy deletion, but the page history shows nothing. I've retagged it, but do you know what's happening? — Pekinensis 01:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You had me confused for a minute there too. It was actually deleted twice already. The creator keeps recreating it. I'll try to deal with it right now. Thanks.

19:31, 20 July 2005 Denni deleted "Kovatch" ( No meaningful content or history, text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent)

17:33, 20 July 2005 Theresa knott deleted "Kovatch" (nonsense article) -- BMIComp (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- BMIComp (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! I don't usually interact with parts of Wikipedia that change that quickly, or with vandals that actually repeat their vandalism. Anyway, I should have realized what was going on, rather than imagining a database glitch. Thank you. — Pekinensis 01:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome to the wild word of RC Patrol! =) Keep up the good work. -- BMIComp (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yew

Hi Pekinensis - could you check I've got the correct Chinese character at Yew, please? (my browser doesn't display Chinese characters at all, so I copied it by positional guesswork) - thanks, MPF 16:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF - yes, that is correct. You might also note the pinyin spelling Yào, and the meaning "brilliance". Regards — Pekinensis 20:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; will do - MPF 18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the border

Hi, thanks for your input on User:FrancisTyers/Fuck the Border, just wondering if you'd had any more thoughts on the matter, please drop by the talk page if you think of anything - FrancisTyers 09:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, check the page again, I've added some more info, you might be interested. - FrancisTyers 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tree sizes

Hi Pekinensis - just thought I'd clarify my re-insertion of 8m as small at Khat, my general use is to say 'small' for trees from 6-15m, 'small to medium size' for 15-25m, 'medium-size' for 25-35m, 'medium to large' for 35-45m, 'large' for 45-60m, and 'very large' for anything over 60m (right up to 110m). I'm not always fully consistent, but 8m is definitely 'small' in my book! - MPF 10:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF - if I had known you were the source, I might have left it, but 8 m is taller than a two-storey house! How would you describe trees under 6 m? — Pekinensis 14:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pekinensis - from Alan Mitchell's Field Guide to the Trees of Britain and Northern Europe: "A tree may be defined as a woody perennial plant which can attain a stature of 6m or more on a single stem"; virtually the same from Richard Preston's North American Trees - so a tree under 6m would be either a sapling, or a shrub, by that definition. I guess a lot depends on what you're used to, I suppose I'm in the fairly fortunate position of living in a climate (plenty of rain!) where tall trees can grow . . . Saturday, I spent wandering round a forest of 55m trees, very nice, there's something very special about being among tall trees :-) - MPF 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A two-storey shrub? I suppose it does depend on what you're used to. In the place I'm most familiar with, no native tree grows over nine meters. I once lived in a house with three imported pines in the back, which I would guess were around 12 m high. We were quite impressed with them. They served as landmarks because they were taller than anything else for quite a distance. It amuses me that microsoft can provide an image [2]. The pines are the slightly yellower trees nearest the center. — Pekinensis 21:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson, I guess so! The pines are Turkish Pine (I've been through Tucson, and seen if not those individuals, some of the many others of that species planted there). But you've got 15m Saguaro in the desert around, and 35-40m trees not too far away on Mt Lemmon (including some very interesting species), so it isn't all bad! Here's some real trees for you anyway, the middle tree, you can see about the first 8m, the other 85% is above the top . . . - MPF 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came up with the 9 m number by very quickly googling for the height of the saguaros; I just took the first number that came up. You can sometimes find native cottonwoods down by the river that are well over 9 m as well; I guess I was arbitrarily restricting myself to the plain. In any case, thank you for the majestic trees. — Pekinensis 01:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MalangaMania

Thanks for fixing it up. I have been watching this page for a while since I am growing Xanthosoma for the first time this year. I was going to wait for someone else to fix it, but it is a pet peeve of mine when people indiscriminately delete large sections that they don't like. I just created a Sockpuppet to revert the Deletionist damage. The dramatic was intentional so they may remember to be more careful before using their delete key (In my main account I maintain balance and respect for Wikipedian contributions). I always like to see content improved, moved to a new article, or related to the main article better before the mass deletions. Seeing the edits now, they were obviously just concerned with one aspect of that section. Perhaps in the future they will act in a more measured manner. Glad you got a laugh. 03:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of good content is deleted when a little context or a better placement could solve the problem. I much prefer {{mergeto}} to {{VfD}}. See my comments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Benefits Of Aloe Vera.

Marshman's concerns were legitimate, but they were addressed by a quite limited rewording, which might have been done without removing the section from the article. On the other hand, the software makes it easy to bring back text, so it's all no big deal.

We all have many sides to us. I did get a good laugh. The article is in good shape. Everybody's happy. — Pekinensis 19:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tunta

I may have not understood the translation - would you please go check on what I've done (chuño)? I got the idea that picana was a side dish to other Christmas dishes. Please correct any mistakes, and thank you for translating that most interesting article. --Mothperson cocoon 21:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That looks very nice. I find it hard to edit my own translations, although I guess I should learn. Just that after I look at the translated sentence a few times, it starts to look fine, and I don't trust my judgment.

Hehheh - I don't understand the picana sentence very clearly either:

Entre de los variados usos de las tuntas en la cocina tradicional, acompañan muy bien un plato tradicional de las fiestas navideñas llamado "picana".

I stared at it for a while and I got the same idea you got, but ... I'll post a request for clarification at es:talk:chuño.

It was fun to translate. — Pekinensis 22:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after staring at the two sentences for a while, I'm pretty sure your version is faithful to the original. — Pekinensis 19:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agronomy portal

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about agronomy to me. Would you like to help establishing and improving the Agronomy portal? You can find its present incarnation at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Agronomy --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting indeed. Thank you for the compliment, but I am merely an obsessed fan. I'm also trying to strictly limit my wiki time, but I will definitely keep an eye on the project. What you have there now looks very nice, both in content and presentation. I particularly like the breadth of topics in the "Did you know" box. — Pekinensis 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Feel free to replace and add more trivia if you can find time. I am not sure whether we should retain several subsections. Do you have suggestions for appropriate subsections?--Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tireh

Thank you, Im not sure of what else is needed to talk these stupid banner off of this page could you help me with that, everything i said thus far i have backed up with audio

Replied at Talk:Tireh.

Well

god bless you. --Mothperson cocoon 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes - I'd forgotten that. I take it you know Mel? --Mothperson cocoon 17:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of West Africa

Thanks! I'm thinking that myself (as I suspect my morning suggestion of Mauritania Railway is likely to be overlooked =)). If this is an area of interest of yours, by the way, please feel free to flesh this out however you like; it's spun off from the Africa Collaboration of the Week, and the week's definitely ticking away! All the best, Dvyost 06:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. I tried to do what I could for the article, given the information that was already on the page. Also, I tried to reduce the POV by saying that "it is claimed by his website that...", instead of simply saying he has it. I still dont know what to do about the template at the top, though. Look and decide if it should be removed. Journalist 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trichosanthes

Snake gourd or serpent gourd is variusly known in India (e.g., in Bengal it is called Chichinga) while pointed gourd is called potol there and parwal in North India. The site [3] shows pictures of all the varieties available worldwide. The page on Trichosanthes may be made into a Redirection page with links pointing to snake gourd and pointed gourd. Supten 05:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation continued at talk:Trichosanthes.

Mahonia

File:Mahonia prntscr.jpg

Printscreen of Mahonia

Hi Pekinensis - hope you won't mind, I've changed the position of the commons links back, as having them above the species list made the layout even worse with a huge gap above the species list (see pic). I agree there's a problem with positioning the commons links, it might be worth raising it with someone who knows how to design the commons link template better (I don't, unfortunately) - MPF 21:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's too bad. It worked on my browser. I'll get back to content. Thanks for letting me know. — Pekinensis 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center

If you have a minute could you add the Chinese for Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center? I have no idea in this regard and notice you've done it elsewhere. I'm actually attempting to greatly expand the Chinese space program category; check my main page if you're at all interested. Thanks. Marskell 10:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. — Pekinensis 19:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Table namespace

User:Omegatron/Tablenamespacespam — Omegatron 01:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fasciolopsiasis

The suspicion for all (raw) edible Aquatic plants needs to be emphasised on the plant pages, as confirmed by the stanford links. would you please do some correction on my english, too? http://www.stanford.edu/class/humbio103/ParaSites2002/fasciolopsiasis/fasciolopsiasis.html

greetings m. --87.193.4.244 01:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Ps: maybe you know about water mimose, also ? looking forward to read, m.[reply]

I'm sorry, but heavy work and moving house mean my time is very limited right now. I will probably not be able to help. Good luck — Pekinensis 18:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sick, Dude

Did you REALLY step in shit? WTF were you doing? Did you get an infection?

Yep, twice in fact. I was taking out the trash both times. No infection, so it only enriched my life. — Pekinensis 20:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review/Yuan (surname)

If you have a minute, could you take a look at the article Yuan (surname) - I've put it up for peer review (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Yuan (surname)/archive1). I hope to make it a model for expanding other Chinese surname articles. Since you've contributed to the Chinese surname article, I would really appreciate your suggestions. Yu Ninjie 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Slur

I do not want to make an issue of it either, but I am curious as to why you think my user name constitutes a violation of Wikipolicy. Lao Wai 09:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

conversation continued at user talk:Lao Wai

Image:Zh-dialect Wannian sample.ogg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Zh-dialect Wannian sample.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Romeo Bravo 08:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumber greens

G'day Pekinensis,

Sorry for the late reply regarding cucumber greens. I honestly have no idea if they're edible. I haven't heard anything that suggests they're poisonous, so my first inclination would be to see what they taste like and go from there. Mind you, eating plants that you're not absolutely sure about can make you ill or dead, so just because I'd do something doesn't mean that you should. ☺

All the very best,

--Pjf 02:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and a newB question

zen3 me yang4, Pekinensis? ni cong2 nar lai2? zhong guo?

Nà shì yīge mìmi.

I wanted to thank you for providing the Wiki-introductory materials to me (a 7-month belated thanks; but thanks nonetheless!). I also had two hopefully brief, non-invasive questions. I've read a lot of Wiki-materials, but I still can't figure out how to do two things:

1.) I have completely rewritten the subtelomere entry and provided my own (ghetto-fabulous) diagram, so I would like to remove the Wikipedia notations at the top which proclaim that the article "needs to be introduced better" (it was literally *only* bullet points previously; see the undeleted section i left untouched after my entry) and the suggestion that it be "cleaned up". I feel my new upgrades obviate the need for these warning banners, but i cannot figure out how to petition for their removal. Help!

2.) I have noticed that when one looks up heyoka on wikipedia, the most significant meaning (that of a sacred clown in indian culture) is buried within the title of a rock band. I promise I'll write a proper Wikipedia entry for the concept of a "sacred clown" in Lakota culture if you let me know how I can petition to have that be a separate entry and not an oh-by-the-way footnote to some french rock group.

sorry for spamming your user talk page...and thanks for your help!

Sorry for the late response. I see that the issues you mention have been resolved. Good luck and good wishes. — Pekinensis 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Could you PLEASE stop making redirects of specific species to their genera? it becomes EXTREMELY annoying if you try to make a species article and it redirects to a genus article because you have to sort out all the common names and things like that. Species articles should NOT be redirected to genus articles simply because they're not the same! The info there doesn't apply to every single species. Just PLEASE stop.--TheAlphaWolf 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the policy suggested at WP:TOL (emphasis mine):

Not all species need have separate articles. The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go for it! As a general guideline, though, it's best to combine separate species into a single entry whenever it seems likely that there won't be enough text to make more than a short, unsatisfying stub otherwise. If the entry grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later.

A useful heuristic is to create articles in a "downwards" order, that is, family articles first, then genus, then species. If you find that information is getting thin, or the family/genus is really small, just leave the species info inline in the family or genus article, don't try to force it down any further.

— Pekinensis 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, don't make articles for every single species known to man. Fine by me. I never suggested that should be done. However, redirecting species articles to ones that are NOT about the specific species is just wrong. If I search a species, I want to know information on that species. Not on the genus, not on the family, not on anything else. I want the information specific to that species and nothing else. It is utterly useless and annoying if people want to know something specific to one species and are redirected to the article for the genus instead. People are not stupid. Stop treating them like mindless idiots who don't know how to perform a search. If they want to find information on the genus, they search for the genus, not the species. You're just making everyone's life harder, including yours.--TheAlphaWolf 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning that I (and others) have followed is that the species name should link to the article which contains information about the species; if the information about the species is left inline in the genus article as suggested by the guideline, then the link should be to the genus article. Even if the genus article has no specific information at all, it will likely have a rough description and certainly have the higher taxa the species belongs to.

I have not pictured the hypothetical user as a mindless idiot, but merely someone like myself who would be glad to save a few seconds and some typing. On the other hand, if the user does not understand the system of binomial nomenclature (which is no proof of idiocy) then the redirect may indeed lead them to information they might not otherwise find.

— Pekinensis 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you haven't been doing that. Take the Amaranth article for example. The only piece of information about most if not all the species you redirected to the genus article is their common name(s). It's the same story with many of your other redirects. I've only come across a few genus articles that did have a short description of different species. The rest had no information about them. --TheAlphaWolf 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not about how much information is provided. The only piece of information about most if not all the amaranth species anywhere in the encyclopedia is their common name(s). The question is whether this information is split among many one-sentence species stubs or merged into the genus article. I took the latter approach, and created the redirects appropriate for a merged article. This had the advantage of being faster, it greatly lessened our commitment to any particular division of species, and I believe it is more informative to the reader. I understand that the taxonomy of Amaranthus is in flux, so the second point is quite important in this particular case, but the third point is more important in general.

Take Amaranthus albus for example. As I am writing this, the reader following this link learns only that it "is a species of flowering plant". With the merged approach, the reader would learn that it is a short-lived herb, may bear edible leaves and seeds, and may be a weed. He or she would also find photographs of related species, giving at least a rough impression of what A. albus would look like. Is the reader not better served by this result?

The argument is even stronger for Amaranthus acanthochiton, which as I write is a red link. A reader in a hurry (or who does not know that this is a Latin binomial and therefore the backup strategy is to split the name in two and search on the first part) may easily assume that the red link means we have no information about this topic, when in fact we have the information that it is a species of plant, a member of the Amaranthaceae, that it is a short-lived herb, et cetera.

This issue applies much more generally than to articles on biological taxa. There will always be a large fringe of topics for which we have only the sketchiest information, and many people agree with me that these topics are often best treated as parts of the smallest including topic for which a substantial article can be written.

— Pekinensis 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. You're missing the point. As I said earlier, I'm not advocating making one-sentence stubs for every single species known to man. That's stupid. If there isn't enough info for an article, its best to not make it. But making hundreds of redirects to one article that ISN'T about the subject matter is pointless. Ok, you can find the common name after looking through a list of species and their common names. Wow. How useful.

And again, you're treating people like they're stupid. First off, if people know the scientific name for something, they more than likely know the common name, and they know about the binomial system. Even if they don't, most people will try searching one or the other words if both words together don't show any results, so they'd be taken to the amaranth article. Secondly, it's easy enough to search both words and then click one of the results (which would be the amaranth article). Heck, I just tried it with Amaranthus crispus, and I get more information right now than if it had redirected me to the amaranth article. Not only do I get the amaranth article as a result, I also know from the results that their range includes britain, ireland, palestine, and israel. Something which I wouldn't know if the species redirected to the amaranth article.

One last point is that merging articles like that discourages people from starting new articles. There are many newbies that are starting articles, and they may not know how to get around the redirect, so they don't start a new article. Or even members that have been here for a while may forget to redirect the other common/scientific names to the new article they created, and then you have a mess where searching "white amaranth" leads you to the amaranth article, but searching "Amaranthus albus" leads you to it's own article.

As for your last paragraph, I'm sure it does apply to other things, but I don't know of any specific examples so I'm not going to worry about that. I'm just talking about redirecting species to the genus article (or genera to family, etc).--TheAlphaWolf 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be unlikely in the case of more obscure species, this can create a problem when an article already exists under a regional common name, and an editor might want to move it to a scientific name in order to allow other regional names to redirect to it (I've run into this once or twice). The general guideline is here, in any case. SB Johnny 01:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root vegetables bar graph

Just wanted to say that I'm impressed by the bar graph technique that you used for the graph on the Root vegetable page. Nice work! Waitak 11:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadleaf Arrowhead

I was revisiting the article today and noticed the questions you left back in 2005.

Name: feel free to move to Sagittaria latifolia. I'm personally wont to it becauise I prefer thema t the English name, but I won't revert if you move.
Clone: I don't think Sagittaria latifolia propagates through vegetative propagation. Is it my (probably incorrect; I am not as familiar as I should with english botanical terms) use of "mother plant" that leads you to ask the question?
tubers: The problem here lies in the translation of French fr:tubercule, which is much broader in scope than english tuber: it encompasses any organ used to store energy. Indeed, tuberous root is probably the proper term. Circeus 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi. Um, I'm pretty sure piped links are preferred over redirects... Hit me up if you want me to find the policy, and thanks, --Rockero 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do find the policy, if you have a minute. Thanks — Pekinensis 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, now I can't find anything that specifically states that piped links are preferred over redirects. But I do recall reading somewhere that redirects cause an undue burden on the server. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that piped links, which take a reader directly to an article, are preferable over redirects, which take a reader to an article via a redirect. I'll keep looking, but supposing I find nothing explicit, perhaps somebody else can help us out with this question.--Rockero 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does thishelp?

"Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]].

Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. But because editing a page is thousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is actually true."

--TheAlphaWolf 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking of double redirects, which "waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing." My mistake.--Rockero 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anredera cordifolia

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of Chlorogalum pomeridianum

I and seglea were puzzled that you moved the talk page of Wavy-leafed Soap Plant before you moved the article. Perhaps you are not aware that moving the talk page is one of the options on the dialog for moving the article. Doing them together avoids confusion.

seglea was upset that you had changed it from its common name. I actually favor listing most plants under their binomials (see the link I left on Talk:Chlorogalum pomeridianum), but it's always a good idea to at least mention it on the talk page a while before you do it, so that no one is blind-sided and any substantive objections can be voiced.

It's also a good idea to at least change the first sentence so that it mentions the new name first (I went ahead and did that).--Curtis Clark 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lamiales

I'm not entirely certain why you have de-categorized Lamiaceae and Gesneriaceae from Lamiales. Explanation? MrDarwin 13:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to follow the guideline in Wikipedia:categorization that an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory. I removed the family articles from the order category because they already belong to it indirectly through their respective family categories. I believe that this is the more general practice, but have no interest in pressing the matter. — Pekinensis 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where the buffalo roam..

Hi,

I saw your comments on the talk page of buffalo (or maybe it was bison; not sure).

Anyhow, I do linguistics and socio stuff, my biology is limited to "Keep Piling Cookies On Green Platters" (you know: kingdom, phylum, canus...etc.). The Arawak page was recently edited to place buffalo in the Caribbean. The edit removed caribou if I recall correctly. I have no idea whether either of these species could be placed inthat location, but I am feeling extremely skeptical of a universe (probably an alternate universe) in which buffalo roam the Greater Antilles.

Oh biology guy, canst thou help shed light upon these dark matters? :-)

later --Ling.Nut 16:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowslip

I saw you made the disambiguation page for Cowslip. Is Caltha palustris known as a Cowslip in the US? (I assume that's where you are). I've double-checked in various sources for UK and European flora, and they've confirmed that in the UK cowslip only refers to Primula veris, whereas Caltha palustris is the Marsh marigold. I think it would be useful to put this geographical information on the disambiguation page, to avoid confusion. Jasper33 19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:

A template you created, Template:Pekinensis tail Chenopodium, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Can you please not redirect species to their genus? Only species to species, or genus to genus, please (where alternative names exist) - otherwise we end up with lots of circular redirects that confuse readers and obfuscate the state of articles. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Map_of_USA_highlighting_Southwest.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Map_of_USA_highlighting_Southwest.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Map of USA highlighting Southwest.png

Thanks for uploading File:Map of USA highlighting Southwest.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient history

Hi. A long time ago you contributed to Talk:Cow (disambiguation); the topic of that discussion has come up again. --Una Smith (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Needdab

Template:Needdab has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Anis Kachohi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Anis Kachohi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DrStrauss talk 17:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named Anchieta listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of things named Anchieta. Since you had some involvement with the List of things named Anchieta redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Idahoan Foods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Idahoan Foods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idahoan Foods until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 13:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ber

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Netherzone (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pressurecooker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pressurecooker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pressurecooker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DonaldD23 talk to me 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]