User talk:Rkitko/Archive14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Rkitko, I note that the title of the page on Ulmus 'Regal' has been changed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulmus_%27Regal%27

I have tried 'Undo', but the change seems to have been made permanent. All the elm pages have the generic name Ulmus in italics, followed by the cultivar name, so it should read Ulmus 'Regal'. Your help much appreciated. Happy New Year, Ptelea (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. The Undo link does not work on page moves. You can try to use the move tab at the top of the page to move it back and this will usually work. Sometimes the target page has several edits, and then an administrator is required to override those edits when moving a page back. A happy new year to you, too. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting to respond to you on this. I just archived my talk page, then suddenly remembered you, and I figured this was my last chance to respond before the thread is condemned to languish forever in my dusty archives.

Allow me to induct you into my amazing template filter invention:

Go to Cryptostegia. Edit. Change "{{taxobox" to "{{subst:User:Hesperian/Filters/Gentianales". Save. A beautiful, modern, taxobox appears as if by magic. Amazing, huh?

Digest, then read on:

Because it is a simple find-replace, you can do it with AWB, but each AWB run has to cover plants of a single order, so that you know what filter to use. And I don't have a filter for every order: only the ones I've already done.

As you can see, manually applying a filter is a hell of a lot easier than manually fixing the taxobox... but on the other hand, the fact that these articles cover such a broad taxonomic range takes away the big advantage of doing it with an AWB run.

The other issue here is that I always carefully checked each order before doing the taxobox fixes, mostly to check that families were correctly attributed to the order. Because if a family was in Liliales under some old system, but Rosales under APG-II, then updating taxoboxes to say that all of these species are in Liliales under APG-II, would be a disaster—worse than leaving them with an out-of-date arrangement.

For these reasons I must beg your indulgence at present. If you want to try applying a filter to some of them, go for it. Otherwise I'll pick them up when I have the time and inclination to do so.

Hesperian 05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the lesson on how to set up and use your AWB find-replace templates. I'll give it a go this weekend, hopefully. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 06:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the article, while well illustrated, doesn't have any images of this species in its natural habitat. I was wondering if you had considered asking Andreas Fleischmann if he could release some habitat photos under a free license? Obviously not images which could potentially help poachers, but perhaps ones showing just a plant and its immediate surroundings? Oh, and fantastic article by the way! mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've thought about it, but I've never been in direct contact with Andreas before and I don't know how eager he would be to release his photos. Individual photos of these plants in the wild tend to be rather contrasty and hard to identify, especially in a 180px default size image; the fynbos vegetation usually surrounds each plant and drowns any detail out in a sea of grass and stems. I suppose it would be nice, though. Rkitko ^(talk) 06:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in the article I newly created on Cryptothallus. It's not carnivorous, but it is the only bryophyte to parasitize a fungus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Very cool! It makes me wish I still taught general botany, so I could mention it in lecture.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

EncycloPetey suggested you might help with creating templates for WikiProject Algae. Then he went forth and created all of them. However, they still require page parameters. Is this something you could readily add to the templates? I also notice you sometimes edit "algae" articles, and would like to invite you to join the project and to contribute to the discussion on taxonomy if you would like.[1] We would also like to tag articles that properly belong to the project, and it would be useful if you could add articles that you know should be listed as high importance articles and articles that may not have taxoboxes but belong to the project (pigments, phycologists, for example). --68.127.232.132 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be much help with algae in general. I keep watch over Volvox, Volvocaceae, and a few others because (I assume) students with out-dated textbooks continue to change the kingdom to "Protista". I'll gladly help with templates and such where I can. Keep up the excellent work. I'm glad someone has taken on the mess of algae articles we have. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I just promoted Drosera regia and wanted to say congratulations on your first FA! Usually, articles don't spend quite as long at FAC as this one did but we are very backlogged at the moment. I hope you weren't discouraged by that. Thank you for having such a good attitude during the process. Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I understood the backlog and was patient. I really appreciated all of the comments and it really did improve the article. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Golly, I never even noticed you'd taken it to FAC, else I would have offered my support. Well done! Hesperian 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rkitko Regret I was largely responsible. I received a complaint that as one of the parents of × elegantissima (Plot's Elm) was identified as a member of the U. minor group, the hybrid and its Danish cultivars therefore belong under U. × hollandica. The taxonomy of British elms is a veritable can of worms, with Cambridge alumni proposing a 2 species and a 40 species / microspecies classification. The problem lies with the extraordinary genetic diversity of Ulmus minor, and the ease with which the species and all its forms hybridize with U. glabra. Stace, author of British Flora, treats Plot's Elm as a distinct species, but recent research at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh indicates the tree does indeed belong under U. minor. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you're one of the main editors for carnivorous plants. I've uploaded a video that may be useful on the Venus Flytrap or Carnivorous plant articles (or neither). File:Venus Fly Trap Eating Compilation Scott's Revenge On The Caterpillars.ogv. I'll let you add it in the appropriate section, as you please. Cheers, Mahanga^Talk 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I started on those taxoboxes yesterday; now I see you making a start. Must be something in the air. I'll start working from the other end, so we're not stepping on each others' toes. Hesperian 04:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be! I completely forgot about it until I saw your recent contribs. Figured I'd work on the manually since there are other article issues like how-to cultivation guides and missing stub tags. Thanks for reminding me of these. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a coincidence. Do you have my contribs bookmarked then? Or does it come up amongst your script outputs? If you find any benefit you're welcome to strike or annotate that list I put in my subspace.

I'm glad you're on the job; these need a lot more attention than what I am giving them. Hesperian 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just your talk page. Saw some activity about arbcom stuff, got curious and browsed your contribs. That's when I noticed you made the list of these and remembered asking for your help. Anyway, I think I'm done for the evening. It's quite late and I have a busy day planned for working in the greenhouse tomorrow! I may pick up on it tomorrow. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 05:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's right: mention ArbCom, then duck and run for cover. Very wise right now. :-) G'night. Hesperian 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be! I think I gave myself a headache trying to read the case and the RfC... I don't know why (how?) a sane person would put up with being on that committee. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you're paying too much attention to editing, and not spending enough time doing what really matters here - arguing over policy. Watch yourself, you're treading on thin ice. Writing encyclopaedia articles...hrrmph! Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I confess! Now that I've gotten an FA, I think I can safely turn my back on content and focus on the important things like policy and guideline arguments. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm finished there. Since a fully struck list is useless, and since you're doing more to these articles than I am, I've undone all my strikes and left yours in place, so that you can see what is done to your satisfaction. You can keep on using it, or not, as you wish. Hesperian 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Job well done. I'll go through and clear through the other concerns. I'll also leave a note on the user's talk page about the how-to cultivation info. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:18, 24 January

2010 (UTC)

Hi I read the Drosera meristocaulis article and tried to find a research paper on the DNA analysis, to be able to nominate the article for DYK, but I had a few problems. The article Rivadavia, Fernando; Kondo, Katsuhiko; Kato, Masahiro; Hasebe, Mitsuyasu (2003). "Phylogeny of the sundews, Drosera (Droseraceae), based on chloroplast rbcL and nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA Sequences". American Journal of Botany. 90: 123-130. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help) states : work done except sect. Meristocaules. Do you have newer literature on the DNA sequencing of the Drosera meristocaulis? The section Phylogenetics in the Drosera article states that the standing of Drosera meristocaulis is not conclusive. Another quote :'The hypothesized Gondwana origins of the Coriariaceae and Melastomataceae were rejected by the molecular clock, and this is also the case for the Drosera, whose disjunct distribution likely resulted from long-distance dispersal. This makes an origin on Gondwana not very likely. I have no access to Glistening Carnivores: The Sticky-leaved Insect-eating Plants, but the book should give a source for the new results contradicting a previous researchj paper--Stone (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this one? Drosera meristocaulis bacps.org--Stone (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the bacps link. I hadn't searched extensively for info on the species. The direct quote from the book is: Recent DNA sequencing analyses conducted by Fernando Rivadavia (personal communications) strongly suggest D. meristocaulis is very closely related to the Australian pygmy Drosera and much more so than to all other species of Drosera that occur in South America. The book was published in 2008; I do not believe Fernando has published his sequence analysis, but I trust the source as Stewart McPherson is very careful in his preparation of these books. I was aware of the 2003 article, but as you can see the 2008 book referenced Fernando's more recent unpublished work. I trust that to be accurate. I need to work on the Drosera article, too, as there's always new research coming up. I'm sorry that I don't have an additional source for you other than an explanation of the McPherson ref. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, this also just came up on the carnivorous plant listserv. Fernando replied that the paper describing the phylogeny of this plant is nearing completion. That's great news. Maybe in a couple months, I'll be able to expand this article to GA-status. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 05:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes scientists all look for the same. I look forward to read the GA quality article. Thanks --Stone (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello; I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia, so bear with me if I place this in the wrong location. You recently reverted changes I (SHuesler) made, based on the reason that it appeared to carry a non-neutral point of view. However, I made the changes precisely because the original text was non-neutral: evolution is a hypothesis, technically never having gathered enough scientific evidence to be officially advanced to the level of theory, and yet continues to be treated as such. I was merely correcting that assumption to improve the article on the "cosmetic" level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHuesler (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this would be the correct place to contact me. You can also reply on your own talk page, as I've placed it on my watchlist. Such an anti-science attitude as the above does not deserve a full response; it reveals your ignorance of the language and definitions of hypothesis, theory, and fact. Please refrain from making such edits in the future and stick to constructive edits. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there is a problem with you dyk hook here Can you help? Thanks! —mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the DYK nom page. It should all be cited in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the DYK rules. I left you links to them under your reply on the DYK nom page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drosera meristocaulis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drosera derbyensis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie♥S93 06:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you have access to the PDF of this? Hesperian 23:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting paper. Unfortunately, no, the pdf is not available to me. Like many journals, I think new articles remain paywalled for six months before they become open access. Kenyon does receive the dead tree version of the journal and it looks like v.97(2) has already been received, so I can scan and send along the article tomorrow. In the event that I can't get to work tomorrow (we're buried in snow; getting home this evening was... entertaining), I'll get it to you the day after tomorrow. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Emailed him a copy. Real life BSA member. Guettarda (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That helps ;-) Does access come with the BSA membership? Basic ASM membership doesn't get you any journal access and it still costs quite a bit. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the BSA is nice that way - online access is part of the membership price. Not bad for $50 (only $20 for amateurs, $10 for K-12 teachers, which is pretty amazing). Guettarda (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Received with thanks. :-) Hesperian 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why you keep removing photographs I've taken, such as the ones on the page for Cupressus abramsiana? I understand you're young and have a bit of an over-enthusiastic attitude toward this, but by removing photos you're limiting the amount of knowledge available to users who are inquiring about this species. Many of the groves where this tree grows are not adequately documented and photos are hard to find. Please stop doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themodoccypress (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons. I have only removed images that you had crammed into the gallery script. If you read the guideline on image galleries, you'll note that they're often discouraged, especially when used as a means to stuff more images in an article with limited text. Proper image placement is sometimes tricky and frequently requires expansion of the text first to accommodate additional images. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Your images are good and I don't mean to insinuate that they're not great additions to the articles (or will be once the article is expanded). In the "external links" section of the Wikipedia article, you can point to the Wikimedia Commons galleries with {{Commons}} or {{Commons-inline}}, e.g. {{Commons-inline|Cupressus bakeri|''Cupressus bakeri''}} would create a link to Commons:Cupressus bakeri so that people could find your images. To summarize, images are meant to supplement the text, not to stand alone at the bottom of the page, and if there's not enough to text to support all the images, you must leave some out. Also, my age has nothing to do with my enthusiasm. Comments like that can often be taken the wrong way. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rkitko, thank you for at least including a link to the commons gallery. This genus is very important to me and for long I found very little information on it on wikipedia. I am only trying to expand many of these articles for others, not trying to engage in a pissing contest with you. I apologize if I was rude before, but I was aggravated. -TMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themodoccypress (talk • contribs) 03:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Wikipedia can be difficult to navigate at first. Lots of templates, guidelines, and policies. You seem to know a lot about these plants and any expansion is of course welcome! Just make sure you cite additions with reliable sources (you can use the footnotes for inline citations, which are much easier to manage when writing articles) and resist the temptation to use your own, unpublished knowledge of the species. I think the images look okay now, though it is possible someone else could come along and disagree (WP:MOS#Images in particular discourages putting text in between two objects, like the taxobox and an image; it renders terribly on smaller monitors). Let me know if you need help with anything. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. I am still learning the code for wikipedia, obviously. I apologize again for my previous rudeness. Your help is appreciated. Themodoccypress (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Themodoccypress —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

Dear Rkitko, Could you move this for me please? I have been advised by a Dutch elm expert that the ancestry of 'Groeneveld' is more complex, and it no longer belongs under the umbrella of Ulmus × hollandica (U. glabra × U. minor). However, my efforts to move it failed owing possibly to the similarity in titles. The new name should simply read Ulmus 'Groeneveld'; see [2]. Many thanks, Ptelea (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. No worries, let me know if I can do anything else. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks once more.Ptelea (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if you plan to update the taxoboxes of the other Nepenthes articles to the APG system? It would be a little strange to have only Nepenthes andamana with this classification, while the rest of the species are under the older system. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, I started the one but then got distracted. I can do an AWB run this evening to update them all. Nice work on all those new species! And if you didn't see it, Marcello posted about it on the ICPS forum: [3]. I assume some of the info there might be useful. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I followed along and made sure the template fixes caused no problems. I only spotted a few that I immediately fixed. Let me know if you notice any so I can go back and check all of them. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, everything seems to be in order. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the photo: File:Drosera spatulata flower.jpg from Drosera spatulata? Your explanation does not make any sense. "this small article must be expanded before it can support it" What does this mean? What are you talking about? A a photo of the flower of this organism will improve the knowledge of this plant to the world. Your actions appear without any regard for scientific truth. Explain yourself. Poyt448 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly as I said. According to our manual of style, images aren't to be crammed into an article, especially one so small. Strictly speaking, text isn't supposed to be held between two objects (e.g. an image on the left and a taxobox on the right), see WP:MOS#Images. The physical size of that article is much too small for three photos; it makes the text nearly unreadable on smaller monitor resolutions and the last image, the one you added, sticks out way beyond the text on larger monitor resolutions. We must take these things into consideration when we position images in articles. Wikipedia is also not a repository of images, and this is why we have links on articles to Wikimedia Commons, so that people seeking more images can find them there. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, there is always possible to add few images, if they provide encyclopedic context. And they provided encyclopedic context in this case. The only task is to choose the best way how to present them. One of the way is like this [4] that is fully compatible with all style guidelines. --Snek01 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that that presentation is compatible with all style guidelines. For one, the images are crammed together on smaller monitor resolutions, forcing overlap. Please review WP:IG and WP:NOTREPOSITORY and you'll see that this use of images is unacceptable. Yes, I agree they're encyclopedic, but images are meant to support the text, not be the bulk of the "article." This is the precise reason Wikimedia Commons exists and why there's a link to the gallery there. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there is "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." not that it is forbidden. Adding images into the text is the normal process of improving articles. That means, that Poyt448's edit was all right and useful. Correct continuing had to be improve style, not to remove parts, that will be undoubtfully in this featured article in the future. --Snek01 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the quoted text as a pretty strong endorsement of the idea that text shoved between two objects is undesirable. Adding images usually improves articles, but when it makes the text hard to follow or read, then the image is doing more to degrade the article's quality and should be removed. The natural action here is not to shoehorn more images into an article too small to support them, but to expand the article first so it can support more images. And believe me, this article is on my list to clean up and expand. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And example of quite short article with 4 images: [5]. Removing of any of those images would highly degrade information value of the article. Such images are useful for the article even if one single sentence would exist. --Snek01 (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that removing those images would reduce the quality of the article. I think it would make it more readable, which is, afterall, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons and does not have to feature every photo of an organism. If there's no space for it and the text becomes secondary to the image, the image should be removed. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Then feel free to improve that article. I will evaluate your improvements and probably immediately announce this at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, because such misunderstanding of purpose of encyclopedia by an administrator is very alarming! Or feel free to start discussion directly there by yourself. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it's on the list. This is one of the genera I specialize in and I will work toward improving it eventually. Your "evaluation" is unnecessary, unless you can help fix grammar, contribute your own text, or improve upon mine. The misunderstanding is not mine, as you seem to think that Wikipedia is Wikimedia Commons, a repository of images crammed into spaces they won't naturally fit. This is already laid out in policy at WP:IG. I fully understand the purpose of this encyclopedia, but we seem to have a disagreement on the extent of the role images should play when there's not much article text. I do believe, though, that the guidelines and policies I've quoted fully support my interpretation. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, about APG III system, which ordering should I use (for french page):

• the pdf cladogram ordering ?
• the pdf text ordering ?
• the english article ordering ?
• the alphabetical ordering (last choice) ?

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The cladogram does not include all ranks (like some unranked families), so that is not the best choice. The ordering is meant to approximate evolutionary relationships, which is tentative and can change, which is why I see little value in maintaining that order, especially on an article that is simply describing which orders and families are ranked within their respective clades. And especially for the longer lists, alphabetical order seems easiest for people to scan through and locate the order they are searching for. I am considering getting rid of the "(back to core eudicots)" part and placing those orders with the other core eudicots. To assuage any concerns about following the specific order laid out in the paper, we could add a recreation of the cladogram using {{cladogram}}. Would that be a reasonable solution? Alphabetic listing and the cladogram? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

One more question: where am I suppose to find the genera list compatible with APGIII ? I could not find any web site providing APGIII. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some follow Kew Garden, but I don't know if they follow APGIII. Liné1 (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I'm not sure that many genera were changed from APG II to APG III. If so, they mention it in the text of the article when they discuss individual orders and families. I'm not sure where to find such a list if one exists. I believe APG III concerns itself mostly with the higher taxonomy. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, APWeb is usually the best place to start for lists of genera by family. Stevens seems to link to Kew when this is still correct or to a separate list when not. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've wanted to implement such a system for some time now - I just never got around to it. My personal preference would be to place the natural hybrids in Category:Nepenthes natural hybrids. Unfortunately, only around half of the Nepenthes synonyms are categorised; I got up to Nepenthes maxima before giving up, so the synonyms of all subsequent species have not been categorised. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll start to work on the category sorts later this evening, then. Are all of the hybrid articles on the 'pedia natural hybrids? If I get around to creating synonym redirects, which ones have you been including? For Utricularia, I ignored nom. nud. and pro parte, focusing on just the nomenclatural and taxonomic synonyms. I suspect Nepenthes is a bit murkier that the Utrics, though... Rkitko ^(talk) 16:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all Nepenthes hybrid articles are on natural hybrids. I included nomina nuda (such as Nepenthes dempoensis for N. spathulata), but not pro parte (as far as I can remember!). Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Did you also ignore auct. non? And I ran into a couple already that I'm unsure of, e.g. Nepenthes alisaputraiana and Nepenthes alisaputrana for Nepenthes × alisaputrana. Are those actual synonyms or just common misspellings? If the latter, perhaps they should just be de-categorized. For now I'll leave them alone; all that I'm unsure of will remain categorized under "N" in Category:Nepenthes. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't include auct. non (in almost all cases there would already be an article under that name for the taxon sensu the original author, e.g. Nepenthes distillatoria). Nepenthes alisaputraiana is the spelling used in the original description, before it was emended. As far as I am aware there is no difference between Nepenthes alisaputrana and Nepenthes × alisaputrana from a nomenclatural perspective. For that reason I don't think N. alisaputrana should be categorised, as it is just another way of writing the same thing, not a nomenclatural synonym per se. And I just came across Nepenthes leptochila (a synonym of N. hirsuta), which is uncategorised, so apparently I didn't categorise all synonyms up to N. maxima. Unfortunately it was so long ago that I don't remember what methodology I followed, if any. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done for now. I didn't know if I should cat-sort Nepenthes sp. Misool and others under "s", so I left them. Whatever you think is best. We also now have Category:Nepenthes species by common name. Like you, I gave up on synonyms, but all that had been categorized in Category:Nepenthes are now in Category:Nepenthes by synonymy. And looking back, I now realize I should have used a sortkey on Category:Nepenthes natural hybrids, but it's a small enough category for that not to be much of a problem. I might do that later. I might also pick up creating synonym redirects later on... Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been going through Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter for some time now, trying to find conservation statuses wherever possible, and removing them where I can't. Quite a number of the remaining articles are ones you created for various Stylidium species. I can't get hold of a copy of the paper they cite (Bean, 2000, Austrobaileya), so I can't tell if they've been assessed by some meaningful standards. None of them is on the IUCN Red List, for instance. Can you advise? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. This particular journal, I believe, requires new taxa described in it to include a conservation assessment. The author, Tony Bean, complied and this is what's cited, but there's no particular system used. I realize a status is somewhat meaningless without a status system, so why don't you let me take care of these. Most are data deficient or secure, anyway. I'll just move the status into the text of the articles. Nice work on cleaning all of these up, by the way. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll leave it up to you. There's no hurry. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Given the long delay, I just wanted to let you know that your question at WP:CP has finally received a response. Thanks for pursuing that. I agree with you that this is a copyright problem and have explained why at the project discussion. Sorry it's taken so long, but typically the CP pages are not reviewed for seven days after they are opened. Are there other articles than the one you mentioned that remain a concern? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your well-informed response is much appreciated! The delay was not a problem. I have removed the copyvio text and link from all other pages started by Gsautter (talk · contribs), leaving the taxobox and an intro sentence, so no other copyvios in this case remain a problem. Again, thank you! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) If any other contributors raise questions about it, feel free to send them to me. US copyright law is complex. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drosera falconeri, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

G'day mate,

I don't suppose you have access to early volumes of Glasra (Contributions of the National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin)? I have temporarily transferred my obsession with Banksia to Adenanthos, and E.C.Nelson published several important studies of that genus therein:

• Nelson (1978), "Studies in Adenanthos Labill. (Proteaceae) II", Glasra 2: 57–70.
• Nelson (1978), "Studies in Adenanthos Labill. (Proteaceae) III", Glasra 2: 71–74.
• Nelson (1978), "Studies in Adenanthos Labill. (Proteaceae) IV", Glasra 3: 9–20.
• Nelson (1986), "Adenanthos × pamela (Proteaceae), a hybrid from south-western W. Australia", Glasra 9: 1–5.

Hesperian 05:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you're still stuck in the Proteaceae, though. I don't have immediate access, but I'll put in ILL requests for you. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably be stuck in the Proteaceae for the rest of my life. :-) Much obliged, as always. I much regret that I was unable to service the one and only literature request you ever made of me. Hesperian 13:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do so anytime. That request for the Austrobaileya articles did lead to Bean's e-mail address and your suggestion that I contact him. He eventually snail-mailed me old article reprints, for which I thanked him profusely. And I finally got around to creating an article for him to fill in those red links, but I'm sorry to say it's a crappy stub. Next time I come across a difficult reference to find, I'll be sure to ask for your assistance. You may be able to shed some light on this: I'm still waiting for volume 34 of the Flora of Australia series to be published before I continue much further on Stylidiaceae stubs (I'm concentrating on the Droseraceae at the moment). Is there an "expected publication date" for upcoming volumes, by any chance? Rkitko ^(talk) 13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Email (short answer: no). Hesperian 00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The pdfs arrived and were sent by email. Enjoy :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will take it out, but I look forward to seeing the expanded article as soon as you get round to writing it. Over at WikiProject Gastropods we are a lot more loose about how many images we allow there to be on one page, partly because of the tremendous encyclopedic value of a good image. And also because we have so hugely many species to cover, and so few people to write all of the articles. I do understand that it is easy to overwhelm a little bit of text with too many images, but two images can actually fit into a taxobox OK. The flower image could go into the taxobox you know, and still look "tidy", unless you really think a taxobox should not be that long from top to bottom? Best wishes and thank you for writing on the very fascinating carnivorous plants! Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,you are an admin here right? can you please look at this user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kermanshahi this user refused to accepr the links i provided because he says that those links are in arabic and he can't understand this language. despite the fact that it is directly related to the topic. he thinks that the election results are not final and i dont know where he got this information from. its everywhere on the news. just to clarfy things, the kurdish list has won 6 seats out of the 12 seats in the disputed city of kirkuk and the remaining seats were given to the aliraqiya list i.e 6 seats. so in fact according to his logic no one has won the majority of seats in kirkuk (eventhough he put on his map that the kurdish list has won the majority in the article which is misleading)and if you look at the links i provided and even the links to 95% of the results it clearly shows that aliraqiya got higher number of votes than the kurdish alliance list. i provided numerous links and he rejected all of them:

• http://www.ihec.iq/English/press_releases.aspx?id=2378
• http://www.ihec.iq/content/file/result/names/Kirkuk.pdf
• http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/4/128842/
• http://www.uruknet.info/?p=64532
• http://www.themajlis.org/projects/iraq-results

Thanks--86.146.8.131 (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)