User talk:Kingdon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Although you've been here since late last year...


Welcome!

Hello, Kingdon, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Edgar181 12:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for nuking the non-notable

Thanks for getting rid of the non-notable World of Warcraft material on Small matter of programming. I'm usually too chicken to get rid of text which I don't see as belonging on Wikipedia, but I'm glad someone takes care of these things. Kingdon 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you're not sure what is notable, it's probably wise not to delete stuff - WP:BOLD does have its exceptions! :) I might add that my own idea of notability has been enhanced by the deletion of the article on a relatively major student computer society of which I am a member: we thought it was notable for what seemed like good reasons, but WP consensus disagreed because there weren't enough independent sources of information. It's very much tied in with verifiability. I suppose the confidence to get rid of NN stuff only comes with such experience. Hairy Dude 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fabaceae

Good work, and thanks for the help. If you're unsure of any future corrections to articles post on the talk page first, or go to [[1]] and ask, or ask Mr. Darwin or Curtis Clark, me or any other plant person on their talk page. Welcome, we need more plant folks, especially editors who realize that the turgid taxonomic prose is not accessible to the average reader. We realize that, but are unfortunately left with a lot of clean-up due to extensive problems from one editor. Also, my prose is rather turgid, but generally gets cleaned up right away. KP Botany 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have had some serious moments of contention, however, most of us work well together most of the time. It's, as you know, a rapidly changing field in exciting times.  :0 KP Botany 03:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agave syrup

Hello, your addition of reliable, scientific sources (which nobody could find previously) to the Agave syrup article is extremely greatly appreciated. If you could find more in the future, that would be excellent. Badagnani 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, learn something new every day. I learned about Google Books a couple of weeks ago, and Scholar Google today. One of the important issues now is which species are used by the producing companies. Also, is this a highly processed product (i.e. involving chemical solvents) or a fairly natural one? And is it true that there are only three producing companies? I'm not sure the producers would disclose any of this, although there may be Mexican trade journals where they give their information (which may be incorrect propaganda which some editors have been trying to insert into the article lately). Badagnani 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screw ups

I'll let you know if you screw up the minute I figure out what I'm doing. Don't hold your breath. KP Botany 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kingdon, did you actually ever read Einstein's book on Relativity since you removed the text which I added. It was a direct quote from an authorized translation of his famous book; Einstein evidently wrote this book in German. By calling it dubious text, you actually insulted the great man himself. I added the text just to see what people would do with it.Steinhauer 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Podostemaceae

Thanks for assisting with this article. Yes, I guess I was feeling a bit bitter when I made that comment! I was encountering far too many unreferenced classifications and lists--of genera, or species, or cultivars--that provided no source information whatsoever, and were often riddled with spelling errors, invalid or ined. names, and synonyms. In some cases I improved them (primarily by adding references) but at some point it is simply too time-consuming to clean up other people's messes so rather than simply deleting them (which is generally my inclination) I have made snarky comments in hopes of drawing attention to some of the problems with such articles. Alas, in most cases the editors who had originally inserted that information never came back. MrDarwin 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I completely understand. I've felt like that sometimes too. Qwertzy2 (talk · contribs) is still active, although he/she doesn't seem to have gotten any better in terms of citing sources despite at least two requests on the user talk page. (The other thing I noticed was Caropsis verticillatoinundata, regarding putting a monospecific genus article at the genus name). Kingdon 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toxicodendron striatum

Thanks for the copyedit. KP Botany 05:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ocreae

Just typed "ocraea" in Commons ;-) Thanks for appreciating other's work, it's so rare in Wikipedia! Aelwyn 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your gracious comments regarding my article on Short's goldenrod. The truth is, I don't know beans about plants, and I just wrote the article because this plant is nearly exclusive to Kentucky. But I'm glad I didn't mess it up too badly. I had to teach myself about nomenclature authorities and things on the fly. I hope someone who knows much more about it than I do will continue to expand the article, and maybe one day it will even be GA or FA worthy. Right now, I'll settle for the DYK recognition if I can get it. Acdixon 11:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote Formatting

I only changed what I saw because of the problem you mentioned. It looks just fine now. HHermans 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Eudicots

Removed wrong messages--NAHID 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, to a talk page? I'm not sure why you had a problem with that comment being on the talk page. Kingdon 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I posted a note to this user's talk page to warn, him/her that this edit could be considered vandalism, and I reverted the edit in order to disagree with you. KP Botany 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kingdon and KP Botany, actually the problem with the VP buttons. Sometimes it took me another page from the page which is recently vandalizing by the anon.Thanks for notifying me.--NAHID 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Furry Beast of Death
In appreciation for all of the small (but quality) edits that you make to Wikipedia, I present you with this Furry Beast of Death. Always keep it caged at all times, lest it escape and eat a small child. SU Linguist
Thanks. I try to repay the favor by saying nice things about other good work I see, like putting a note on the talk page of Acdixon (talk · contribs), the first author of Solidago shortii. Kingdon 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for improving Digital Object Identifier

Hello Kingdon. That was on my list to get to some day, and you just fixed it! EdJohnston 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It kind of stuck out like a sore thumb, and looking at the talk page I saw I wasn't the only one with that reaction. Kingdon 14:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfberry

Image:Dre-tsher-ma.jpg
220px

Hi, here's the page, which was scanned by some traditional medicine people at the Tibetan Astro-Medical Instute in Dharamsala for Trausti, who runs the Tibetan Language Student website, at his request (following my request for information about what the name of this plant is in the Tibetan language. The general opinion is that the berry is known and used in Tibetan medicine, but not very much in contrast to other more important indigenous herbs. It's available in herb shops in Lhasa, but is acknowledged by everyone as a primarily Chinese herb rather than an indigenous one. Not surprising because it's that way in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam as well.

I hadn't uploaded the page before because there's currently a difficulty on WP with using fair use photos such as this, as you probably know.

Badagnani 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trausti's email

Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:02:50 -0800 From: "The Tibetan Language Student" <trausti@...> To: Wikipedia User:Badagnani Subject: Re: The Tibetan Language Student

It was good I had them send the scan because my contact person got one letter wrong in the first reply :)

I have attached the scan they sent. It shows a drawing of the plant from a Tibetan medical book. The Tibetan text below reads "pe-ri" (example number), then the number 366, and the name of the plant in Tibetan, with Chinese name (I think) in brackets and the scientific name below.

I'm also sending you an image of the correct spelling, hope you can replace the one that is already out on Wiki.

The correct name in Tibetan is still roughly pronounced "dre-tsher-ma",

the changed spelling does not change the pronunciation much. In Wylie this will be 'dre tsher ma (note that the comma at the start, needs to be there, it indicates the silent prefix). The Wylie system is a standard method to write Tibetan using Roman letters. This is what an Tibetan language academic would understand. One can often not get the spelling from the phonetic representation. There is no standard system for this, mainly because Tibetan is spoken in so many dialects that vary greatly. The pronunciation I'm giving you is based on the Lhasa dialect, but one would never get it correct without hearing it. Again, the "r" part is not a full blown r-sound, but more of a kind of scrolling sound, added to the "d" sound.

I'm not sure what the "dre" part is derived from. There are few options. This could come from the verb "dre-wa", which means "to get mixed" or "to get jumbled together". In old Tibetan this was also noun that had the meaning of "bring out of faint/unconsciousness", maybe the usage of

the plant is there in the name, I have no idea. "dre" is also a noun and then it means "ghost", so maybe the name of the plant is "Ghost Thorn".

These are just wild guesses, don't put that last part out on Wiki :)

Armed with the correct spelling, I was able to find this word in my dictionary. It's translated "wolf berry" in that dictionary. So this name is well know in the Tibetan language. But it would not be surprising if it's also known by the Chinese name. The Chinese language

has had big effect on the Tibetan language, now that Tibet has been occupied by the Chinese for almost 60 years. So if it's used by the Tibetans inside Tibet today, then I would call that slang or foreign influence, not the real name (dre-tsher-ma is way more cool name anyway

). But then the more known name today inside of Tibet, might be the

Chinese version. That person you mentioned might also use the Chinese name just because that's known, nobody would know what dre-tsher-ma is.

The book that this came from is in Tibetan only. The name is long and a very quick translation resulted in something like "Cleaning and Usage of Tibetan Medical Substances".

As far as I know, they do not use this berry at the institute in Dharamsala. I was told it was becase it only grows in China\Tibet. Therefore they do not have access to it. However, I think that if this berry was very important to them, then they would find ways to get it. The doctor said that in the past this berry was used in traditonal Tibean medicine. It would not have found it's way into the book (where the scan came from) if this was not of some use to the Tibetan doctors.

The website of the Tibetan Astro-Medical Instute is http://www.men-tsee-khang.org/

All the best,

Trausti

[edit] Ununoctium isotopes

The edit I made meant this. Ununoctium is the atom, while the neutron count is the isotopes. There cannot be three different atoms of the same electron configuration, unless they are different isotopes. '''Styrofoam1994''' 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NTP Pool edit

The total numbers of NTP pool servers is shown on the NTP Pool home page in the box that says "Active Servers". It currently states 1425 servers. See http://www.pool.ntp.org/ Could you please fix your citations? --Mperry 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we won't be able to go back in time to figure out what that box said in the past (we could try citing the wayback machine at archive.org but that's different from citing pool.ntp.org directly). The wayback machine has a snapshot dated Jul 14, 2007 which shows 989, so I think we can say that 1000 was passed sometime between then and 8 September. Perhaps a bunch joined after the publicity (there is past precedent for that). There also could be a lag between when 1000 was passed and when reporters wrote about it. It is bad form to have an article which just cites the web site of the entity being written about (see for example Wikipedia:Independent sources). Given Wikipedia:Recentism, we're not really trying to be up to the minute, so maybe we should just say "mid-2007"?
Aside from the question of the number, those articles should provide references for many of the other facts in the article. Kingdon 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uber Geek

Hi, Not sure If I'm doing this right. Still new to Wikipedia. Thanks for your comments, I strongly feel that Uber Geek to so much different to Geek that is does indeed require it's own page. It's almost like putting Chimpanzee and Gorilla on the same page if you know what I mean. Also the opposite 'Athleek' is such a new term that I was hoping an independent wikipedia page would help in the terms growth. Athleek (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] APG II

See Haston, E.; Richardson, J. E.; Stevens, P. F.; Chase, M. W.; Harris, D. J. (2007). A linear sequence of Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II families. Taxon 56(1):7-12. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I'll ref it in. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hieracium, quotes, 3RR rule, etc

When I talked about both of you keeping in mind 3RR I wasn't saying you had violated 3RR, just that you were getting close especially on Hieracium laevigatum where you removed the quote, re-removed it, and removed it a third time. Can't remember whether there were any others I saw with that many reverts. Anyway, you are right to take things to talk pages and let's hope that we get a response from CarolSpears (I have in mind giving her a chance to read what is there before adding a lot more which is why I'm posting this here rather than on User_talk:CarolSpears). She has made many valuable contributions, so it would be a shame to get things all clogged up based on some fairly minor points. Kingdon (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I'm just about to go apologize for doing that on that page. That was the only quote I was really insisting on getting rid of since it's 1) not related and 2) part of an IP's contribution to another Wikipedia article. It may have given Carol a bad example, though, as she's now brought the quote back to the top of Hieracium caespitosum and another one as well. Not to mention going around to all the articles and removing the WP:PLANTS banner. I hope I explained well enough why she shouldn't do that at Talk:Hieracium caespitosum but please do jump in if I misrepresented anything. I will refrain from reverting her edits on the mainspace for now. I don't feel like we've gotten a good explanation on why WP:LEAD should be ignored in these cases or why the unrelated quotes should remain. I have a feeling it might be, at least in part, a case of WP:OWN. I don't want to scare her off since, you're right, she has many good contributions, but she seems protective of the content of the articles she's created, so I thought I should let her know about that policy. Well, on to the apology on her talk page. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My error - removed

My apologies, I posted on the wrong user talk. Removed, sorry, Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Joe Weber?

i dunno....it wasn't i who made that edit, it was user:204.213.77.142 (talk · contribs). cheers! --emerson7 03:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about citation/reference style(s)

In my recent history here, I have really had a lot of fun filling out every possible option that was available to me in the various citation templates -- perhaps too much fun even (recently I added some wiki syntax to the citations for an article and it increased that article by at least one kilobyte); it was an exercise in fun, not in my opinion about citation style. I mention that now because I am interested to know about how citations like this one work. The strengths and weaknesses or what is gained and what is lost. There is a quote contained in the reference/citation style, but it can only be seen in edit mode (I think). I am confused and I was unsuccessful when I attempted to reference that way. Thanks -- carol 05:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your comments on St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland as part of the peer review process. Kind words are sometimes few and far between on Wikipedia. I'll work on the introduction. As I am biased, having contributed most of the article, would you mind doing an assessment on the quality scale? Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'd be a bit more confident about the assessment if I were more active in either of the two given wikiprojects. Higher than "B" might make sense, but I'm a bit unclear about what isn't included but might be (more photos including old ones, more about how this parish relates to the larger church, whatever). Kingdon (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukkusiksalik National Park

Thanks for taking the time to clean that up. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pipes and redirects

Which is worse, a piped link or a link to a redirection page? -- carol (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I have seen a bot run through and change links to redirection pages into piped links. I am very curious to know if there is a preference for one over the other? -- carol (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not familiar with the bot you mention (I'd be a bit surprised, actually, because Wikipedia:Redirects which lists some cases in which piping is wrong). I'm not sure exactly how to write Corolla (disambiguation), but the main point is to refer to petal not head (botany). Kingdon (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a sticky wicket for you: big pipe problem!! -- carol (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hesperidium

The picture-diagram is about fruit anatomy, which everybody agreed on its necesity as a separate article, which was created and is now avilable, and is including this diagram. The diagram as placed in hesperidium article influenced the readers that the article is about fruit anatomy, and it has been suggested that the article should be merged into fruit anatomy, peel (fruit), citrus and berry. if you want the article to stay in place, you should replace the diagram with another one or picture which expresses the meaning of hesperidium, and not the layers anatomy which is the same by all kinds of fruit. Thanks for understanding, mean while I'll let the picture in place. - CitricAsset (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plants named after people

Hey, thanks for contributing to my (silly?) new category, but is Cronquistianthus indeed named after a person? If so, could you note that in its article? Jbening (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind--figured it out and made the change myself. Jbening (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually did read WP:OC before creating the category, and by my reading the examples given there are all clearly more over-the-top than PNAP is. My first thought was to create a list, which would I think be of interest to some people and which I may still do (including a blurb on who each plant was named after), but creating a category is a more modest way of accomplishing the same end. Jbening (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plants and green algae

I'm not much of a plant person, and don't really know exactly what plants are defined as. I thought green algae said that some are plants and some are 'protists', though upon closer inspection it seems that they are rather 'variously defined', presumably meaning some consider them plants and some don't. Perhaps this should be reflected in the definition of the plant article (or removed from the green algae article, if all consider them to be plants).

By the way, the lead of that article is really poor. Should be a number one priority for the plants project, surely. Richard001 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates to Patent of Toleration

FYI, I moved your August 2007 addition to Patent of Toleration to Edict of Turda. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

Hello. As the person who has modified the guideline on piped links on the aforementioned page, I believe that it should be you the one who lodges the change at User talk:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes, the new, centralised venue for registering changes in the Manual of Style so that they can be more easily followed by the editors. It is something I fear I could not do myself. Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For coming to the Rosette (botany) talk page and for the caulescent addition, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC Chapter

Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Thanks

You previously sent me a welcome note. I appreciate it and I enjoy wikipedia so much! I enjoy making sequence galleries in the articles. Thanks for the advice! Again, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooFari (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)