This page 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. |
Welcome!
Hello, Curtis Clark/Archive 1, 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!
Thanks for highlighting the whole thing about the n-dash for me — I like to pretend to be a grammar pedant but obviously I still get it wrong! -- Lord Pheasant 06:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - Carya illinoinensis is correct; see Flora of North America and Letters, HortScience 26(11):1358 for details. - MPF 29 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for copyediting my plant articles. English not being my native language, I tend to have issues with vocabulary. Circeus
Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\ talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice work fixing the addition to Rancho Cucamonga, California. - Willmcw 21:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the category on Coast live oak. I ran a trial run on AWB, and you got to it before I did. --— Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you caught out my wrong usage of microgametophytes at male. Could you tell me whether a plant strictly has "male" gametes at all or are microgametophytes the closest cell plants contain? -- Oldak Quill 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I can't. I didn't write that material; I just edited the page to make it visible.
Well, it's a wiki, so you can edit it if you want. In my personal opinion, a "see also" should be sufficient, since the Burr article already explains all the other meanings. -- Russ Blau (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on deleting material on user talk pages. I will no longer do that. Dapoloplayer 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments on my discussion page ... Ingyhere 09:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the brilliant and techincally excel picture in the Salvia columbariae artice.
Hi! Professor Clark, would you please help me to verify if the picture in the link is Coyote gourd (Cucurbita digitata or palmata)? [1] Also, I would like to know if this species occurs in the Puente Hills Area naturally.
Secondly, I need you help to indentify this beautiful flower in a landscaped lawn. [2] Geographer 08:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I was at school when I replied to your comment and at the time I was a little upset about a grade that I had received in my Organic Chemistry test. I know I should not take my frustration on other people. Anyhow, I already requested permition to Cal Poly Pomona's webmaster for the usage of those pictures in Wikipedia. In case the request is denied I understand that the pictures must be deleted as they violate the author's copyright. Lufthmark 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Clark, please, consider the Template:Pre-Linnaean botanist. I made it as a follow-up of the article on Pierre Magnol by User:Wikiklaas. Don't you think it would be reasonable to apply it to the pre-linnaean botanists with author abbreviations instead of the Template:Botanist? Alexei Kouprianov 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Clark I have deleted the "No Rights Reserved" notice from the pictures that I wrongfully uploaded. If I have edited them incorrectly I would like to know as I would like to stop contributing to plagiarism myself in Wikipedia. I did not understand that being a Wikipedian is a great responsibility and should be taken seriously and professionally. Without people like you, people like me would make Wikipedia a mundane and inhospitable place. Thank You. Lufthmark. 29 March 2006
A , for your knowledgeable contributions to Wikipedia and the kindness with which you make them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Curtis, I'm sure the AD/BC (CE/BCE) thing has struck us all at some point. Single-character changes by an IP user usually are vandalism, so it's a good instinct... Cheers, --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed your User:Curtis Clark/BOT 343. This is an interesting development, which may work out well for wikipedia! Do you know if you are the first to adopt this policy? Brya 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So that's his actual name, and any similarity this guy is purely coincidental? — Apr. 10, '06 [04:12] < freakofnurxture | talk>
Not a problem. He's been fully unblocked. — Apr. 10, '06 [04:25] < freakofnurxture | talk>
Thank you for the support. Brya 08:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I said "full set of chromosomes" instead of "diploid..." was because many plants are polyploids, wouldn't it be more correct to say "full set" instead of "diploid set"? Diploid would mean they have a pair of each homologous chromosome, but they have more than two... right? -- TheAlphaWolf 22:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh right... and about the gametophytes... ALL plants undergo alternation of generations, therefore saying that in plants that do that is misleading as all of them do. Some algae also do it too. -- TheAlphaWolf 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the inappropriate image in the palo verde article. The species shown (Parkinsonia aculeata) is cultivated but not native of the USA, as far as I know. The same user inserted other unrelated images in a few other articles. I fixed the Amancay article.
Could you please check whether the caña brava she inserted in the article Phragmites belongs there? She told me
The Scientific Name of this Peruvian plant: GYNERIUN SAGITTATUM and its Family name is POACEAE. I hope this might help you. If you have any further questions, let me know. Regards --Evelyn Zuñiga 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Jclerman 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
yes i realise that, but it's not POV it's matter of fact, i did not say i was talking about the entire population, i was talking about the overall breed as it is naturally, bu i thank you for your say and i will incorporate it into what i have to say about doberman's but you must admit, that what i have said is justifiable—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis ( talk • contribs) .
thank you, you have helped me get a point accross in a less-hostile way. yet i feel you have missed out misunderstanding of dogs in the media.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis ( talk • contribs) .
i'm not stupid, i've used wikipedia for ages, i may have only just joined but i know how it works, so don't treat me like i'm stupid. i did list some, you removed them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis ( talk • contribs) .
I am currently adding a transparent image placeholder so that the rows that doesn't have images doesn't get dwarfed by the rows that does. Also, it looks better that way than a short and wide box. Is that better the Image:Noimg.png since it's transparent and blank? G. H e 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - one I've never been able to find out: does pensylvanicum (in e.g. Acer pensylvanicum) constitute an error to be corrected to pennsylvanicum? William Penn can't be too amused, I'd suspect, but the species is (almost) always given with the original spelling with just the one 'n'. - MPF 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ex. 1. Retention of original spelling: The generic names Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and Amaranthus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus and the spelling is not to be altered to "Mesembrianthemum" and "Amarantus", respectively, although these latter forms are philologically preferable (see Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1928: 113, 287. 1928). - Phoradendron Nutt. (1848) is not to be altered to "Phoradendrum". - Triaspis mozambica A. Juss. (1843) is not to be altered to "T. mossambica", as in Engler (Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C: 232. 1895). - Alyxia ceylanica Wight (1848) is not to be altered to "A. zeylanica", as in Trimen (Handb. Fl. Ceylon 3: 127. 1895). - Fagus sylvatica L. (1753) is not to be altered to "F. silvatica". The classical spelling silvatica is recommended for adoption in the case of a new name (Rec. 60E), but the mediaeval spelling sylvatica is not an orthographical error. - Scirpus cespitosus L. (1753) is not to be altered to "S. caespitosus".
Thank you for correcting my bad article writing. ILovePlankton 15:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Curtis Clark! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Gl e n T C (Stollery) 06:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support - and a friendly hello! Your university home page was very interesting (Renaissance botanists, cracked me up!) and your proposal of Wikipedia as a learning tool couldn't be more correct. I myself use it as just that - going over, editting, verifying and seeking new informtion for pages is the sort of active learning I just can't seem to muster for my own personal notes at home, haha -- Serephine / talk - 03:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you're local! I'm at Rancho Santa Ana in the grad program there. I was wondering, do you think it might be helpful to have an article about the Jepson Manual and its history? At least in regards to the articles about California flora, it might be nice to have a pointer to something about Jepson and its importance in California floristics. -- Clickie 07:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Curtis. Didn't realize you were also a Wikipedian, but I'm not surprised. At any rate, I think of "insectivory" and "carnivory" as different things (and, indeed, the carnivore article does separate them, at least by considering one a specialized subset of the other). Just one of those cases where the technical definition versus what people mean when they use a term aren't quite the same, so I just felt it needed a little clarification. Peace, Dyanega 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Curtis, I apoligize for what my little brother did. We share a computer and he frequently vandalizes WIKIPEDIA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.160.34.153 ( talk • contribs) .
Not a problem. Maybe someday he'll decide to be a Wikipedian and make some important contributions.-- Curtis Clark 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - is it Acoelorraphe or Acoelorrhaphe? Original spelling is the former, and is used by FNA and USDA, while the second is used by GRIN despite acknowledging the original spelling. Any thoughts? - MPF 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis. I uploaded another version of the image. Please check [3] to see if it's up to your standards and add it to the article if you think it's of any use. I'm afraid I can't do any better than that with the equipment at hand. Adamantios 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware that I need to work on civility. It's just so frustrating to see what was a somewhat decent article become so screwed up over the past six months. -- Coolcaesar 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
While I fully agree that User:NinaSpeaking's placing of AFD tags on those articles was basically vandalism, I don't understand what you mean by "articles that are not part of the AfD process". Surely any article is part of the AfD process once someone nominates it for deletion. User:Angr 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
hey, man. I don't feel like signing my name. there's no rule that states that i need to. Thanks for wasing you time and going behind me, it's been fun.
Hi Curtis - two reasons; first, Cat:Fagaceae is still small enough to accomodate all the articles written for the family so far (having them all in one cat makes checking 'recent changes' for vandalism, etc., a lot quicker and easier), and second (because eventually, a Cat:Quercus may be needed), cats can't be moved, they have to be deleted and the new one created. Once Cat:Fagaceae has more than 200 articles (the most a cat page will show), that will be the time to make Cat:Quercus and re-cat them again; but with under 80 articles done so far, that's a long way away yet - MPF 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello
I Got your name there that u deleted my link of helpfulhealthtips.com in sex determination topic.
Can i know the reason! My Links are not spam.
They contain my own original articles which i contribute everywhere. I am a medical consultant and want to give my articles.
Please let me know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helpfulhealthtips ( talk • contribs) .
Okay, sorry! — Keenan Pepper 03:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - they are free in Pinus (i.e., only fused at the base, like all other Pinaceae). They are closely adpressed onto the seed scale and (usually) very short and stiff, but it is possible (by bending the scale down a bit) to get a a sheet of paper between the bract and scale, as in the pic right. - MPF 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that there are enough people that truely hate Coolcaesar for his overpassionate views and his degrading humanities, and the ways he approaches problems. He totally discriminates, irritates, and humiliates affiliates on situations that he particularly doesnt like. If you look at his talk page, it is full of hate and angry messages from people who were offended by his animal-like behavior, and it needs to stop. The summaries and discussions he carries out almost perpetuates fights to start, making people angry, and making them do things that they would not normally do. Looking at pages he has contributed (which he claims ownership of many) you will notice that on the talk page he has humiliated, trask-talked, and devalued someone who didnt agree with him like he was a communistic ruler. It is degrading to people for him to think that his status at Wikipedia allows him to be so abusive, and hurt people so bad mentally that they would do anything to retaliate against this maniac, and I think that this issue needs to be addressed. An Rfc should be in order, and I will be contacting ALL the people he has offended and degraded, which will take a long time because there are a lot of them, to get his power taken away from him and give him a taste of his own medicine. I will follow through and give the people so hurt by him JUSTICE! -- 69.232.62.33 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
I saw that you tagged Image:3pera4.jpg as a copyvio. However, the site that you said it was from had many many pictures of flowers, and I could not find the right picture. Could you point out which picture it is on the external site?
Many thanks, -- Where 03:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Jepson's Heteromeles arbutifolia or GRIN's Heteromeles salicifolia? GRIN seem pretty sure of their change but don't explain it. Looking at the respective basionyms, Photinia arbutifolia appears to have priority (1821 vs 1851) so if they're right, there must be some other reason for the change - MPF 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're talking about the bit I added about the South Dakota quarter trivia when you say it's POV. If this is not how I should communicate with you, I'm sorry, I'm a long time user of wikipedia, but only recently started editing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.115.0 ( talk • contribs) .
thanks for the fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLATE ( talk • contribs) .
To answer your question Curtis, no I have not edited the citrus article for a long time. Therefore I am not the same anon you speak of. By the way, if it helps I will provide edit summaries & I appreciate the welcome you gave me, but please delete the page you made for me. I deleted it from the Wikiproject Plants Talk page because I prefer TOTAL & COMPLETE ANONIMITY. I have no idea how you got that page back, but please delete it. I am not a vandal, just a general science enthusiast & I did not know about the edit summary part. As a matter of fact, I was looking for it the other day, not knowing what it was called or where it was located. Anyway I would appreciate if you would take down the page. It would mean a lot to me because I am afraid of hackers. Please take it down just in case, even if I am not in danger of hackers. I will check back at your talk page until you reply. - 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you do not trust me, just look at my edits. - 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Curtis Clark 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much.
By the way, what do you do when you post a message to a person who won't answer it (and, by the looks of it, won't answer anyone else's beyond a certain date) and you have proof that they have been using Wikipedia recently (which rules out that person not using his/her computer)?.
OK. - 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, the person in question is an admin. They in particular are supposed to answer queries and, though that person's earlier posts had been answered, the recent ones haven't. The situation in question was that the admin. had reverted one of my edits. All I wanted was to know why and the go back to my stuff. I didn't see anything wrong with my edit, except maybe it wasn't well written and that could have been fixed with a cleanup. Anyway, as I said, admins are supposed to answer comments, I think. Please Reply. - 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The person has already replied. By the way, I think the general wikipedia public already knows my page number as she replied there. Oh well. What's done is done. I'm not sure about making my own page, but I think I will keep that one as people are already answering to it. Thank you for your time, comments and advice. - 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Curtis, could you please look over the article Type (botany)? I need an outside opinion, preferably from somebody with some knowledge of botany, as to whether my edits are really as horrific as have been claimed. (Be sure to see the last version edited by me, before it was reverted by another editor.) MrDarwin 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - could you check over the latest by anon 60.41.38.215 to Ginkgo, please? Some of it seems useful, but other bits I'm less sure about - MPF 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
dude, you need to chill out, youre wayyy too mad off this bro! and yeah you come off as a PC-nazi dude, like for real yo. i understand that this is an encyclopedia but youre reaction has been extreme and was very rude and has a terribly antagonistic and mean tone. "where you didn't put the template; what's up with that" what do you mean whats up with that, am i perfect, am i sposed to know every single article where it could fit dude? geeze, if you care so damn much, BE BOLD add it yourself or be nice and message your concerns to me, its not point of view dude male/female.. humans isnt such a strech, but yeah i added Man and Woman since they are more fitting, but i.d.k. i think male and female might be merritted, so what if its not a human only article, i dont know hows its POV to add them to sexual identity but yeah whadya think Qrc2006 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the link i LMAO! and heh sorry about being rude, and theres no such thing as someone's template, alltho yeah i did create it and was tweaking it and trying to make it work and adding it to everywhere relevant, go ahead and add it wherever u think its appropriate this is a collaberation, never feel the need to not do somthing cuz its not your terriroty Qrc2006 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Me again! What happened to the Citrus article? I checked it out and it said that there is no article with that exact name. I had to check out the history to be able to see it. What's going on?! - 02:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Curtis, thank you for your message. I am not a big fan of vandalism, but I do think that when the same exact section is repeated in an article nine times in a row, it should be deleted. Please correct me if I am wrong. I reverted the article back, you are welcome to study the deleted fragments in greater detail to ensure that only redundant information was removed. User:Levan
I recently managed to get attribution for this image: Image:Delicate rose.jpg. I noticed from the talk page for rose that you know your stuff, and I was wondering whether you could identify it's class etc. so I could add it to the articles with a correct caption. Cheers, Daniel . Bryant 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to ask, can you make an article for Etiwanda, CA, Thanks. ( 66.174.92.162 08:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
All I could make is a stub, since I don't know a lot about the community. Would you add more? Also, it would be Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, California to follow a recent consensus on article titles for communities within incorporated cities.-- Curtis Clark 14:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to sign in this morning when I edited a few pages, soon after you added this message to my IP address' talk page:
“ | Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Curtis Clark 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | ” |
What are you talking about? As far as I can tell I didn't add any "nonsense". RyGuy17 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Mindspillage is currently sick. I suggest that you report your impostor(s) to WP:AIV, where you'll get a much faster response. 128.2.251.78 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick copyedit--it was one of those irritating little Wikipedia pages that completely ignore the local ethnobotany, and I didn't want to wait to edit, when I should have. KP Botany 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: "The spine article is actually incorrect; prickles are not spines" [4]. I won't agrue the point as I agree with you but wonder if the better course, then, would be to fix the Spine (botany) article, perhaps even renaming it (e.g. Prickle, Spine, and Thorn, rather than simply not link to it. Henryhartley 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've heard and seen paleoherb used a lot, and basal angiosperms, but don't find paleodicot used in my textbooks (Soltis and Soltis et al, and the latest Raven et al., will check Simpson's glossary), and it's used in half-a-dozen or less articles that I can find through internet searches, other than multiple references to the same articles. I've never heard it used in a seminar, although I have limited academic contacts. There are no dictionary definitions for it other than Brya's. Can you cite some paper sources that use this? Or a definition? Thanks. Yes, it's overblown in comparison to the APG III stuff, though. KP Botany 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the Spermatophyte talk page, and a similar diagram is inserted in the Plant article. I've posted a question about it on MPF's talk page as I think he is responsible for it. These diagrams need to be very carefully labeled, as they apparently represent the phylogeny produced from one particular research project, presented in a particular publication; it certainly doesn't represent any kind of consensus with regard to the interrelationships of the major groups. MrDarwin 14:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense:
Ears This is not true, however, of Dobermann ear cropping, which is usually done between 7 and 9 weeks of age.
What is not true?, it just starts saying that something is not true, but what is it?, that's why I edited it and left the 'Dobermann ear cropping is usually done between 7 and 9 weeks of age'. DamianFinol 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the correction...was wondering if you could give a few examples of a 'stem.' even after reading the article, i'm not too clear on the concept. thanks again. -- emerson7 | Talk 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
May i know why you have reverted Sage engine in sage ? -- SkyWalker 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my forgetting of this link at BUR. The redirect was made obviously necessary by the addition of the BUR airport code to burr... Circeus 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Encelias-in-Jepson, what do you make of apparent E. farinosa with leaves 10 cm long or more? Saw some planted along a new street here the other day, never seen Encelia leaves that big... Also, ran into some extreme leaf dimorphism on Frenchman Mountain, with 2-cm-leaf plants side-by-side with 6-cm-leaf plants, no blooms so can't tell if hybrids or what - can send you a photo if you're interested. Stan 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Professor Clark,
You sent me a message today implying that I am spamming Wikipedia with links for advertising and promotion. With all due respect to your botanical experience and level of participation on Wikipedia, I object.
I am a gardening and botany enthusiast. When I discovered I could be a part of perfecting Wikipedia's knowledgebase, I was ecstatic. This morning, I was merely supplying information to enhance and/or correct the pages that I edited. Specifically, the Juniperus squamata page on Wikipedia incorrectly refers to that species as Flaky Juniper, when it is known as Singleseed Juniper. I made that change (without deleting the words Flaky Juniper), but you undid it. You also deleted the reference that I added to substantiate the change. I added several other references to other Wikipedia Juniperus pages this morning to substantiate changes there as well, but you deleted them also.
I want you to know that I truly appreciate your veracious pursuit toward the integrity of Wikipedia. But I am writing to you to declare myself as someone who shares the same concerns and beliefs in that regard.
I welcome any suggestions you may have for us to work in unison and I look forward to your reply.
Fractaloctal 17:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you corrected my erroneous edit of the Maize article. Since I'm fairly clueless on nomenclature I was hoping you might be able to give me some advice.
-- Alf 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice :) -- Alf 02:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I saw your note on the talk page of the Peruvian pepper article (and responded to it there). I created the article from scratch at the beginning of this month, which is why there's no history before that. (I moved the redirect on Schinus molle too; it was pointing at Schinus.) I'd be grateful if you could have a look at the article; I'm not a botanist, just someone who's very interested in edible plants! Squeezeweasel 13:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Curtis, please re-read the last sentence of Art. 18.5, which I interpret to mean that the name Leguminosae cannot be used for the family in its narrow circumscription although I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the names Fabaceae and Papilionaceae. Is this saying that Papilionaceae must be used over both Fabaceae and Leguminosae when the family containing Faba is narrowly circumcribed? MrDarwin 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Enjoyed your recent comments on Taxocom (whatever the list serve is called). People add variety to articles in English, simply because English is a rich language, without the understanding that it really is rich, not all words are equal, and variety doesn't always enhance communication. KP Botany 17:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I found them at the French page, where all three have article. I can try to translate them or create stubs if you'd prefer me to. Jeannette Burr is a currently requested article for sports and Jeff Burr was the director of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I'm not clear how notable Courtney Burr is; he apparently worked on the theater versions of The Seven Year Itch and Sailor Beware. I just found about Australian politician Max Burr, too. Circeus 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone added a userbox to your user page, so I deleted it. I assume they meant to add it to their own, so I welcomed them to Wikipedia and popped the user box to their talk page for their convenience. KP Botany 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
User Spamreporter1 has made a proposal for the tagging issue. He was not previously involved with either project before seeing this discussion, and I belive that his opinion therefore is NPOV. The suggestion is that articles that have no state-wide scope be tagged only locally. Please go to this section on the SoCal page to provide input. — Scouter Sig 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to compile a section on how organisms are broken down when they die for the death article, however I'm having some difficulty understanding the subtleties of some of the terms used. One thing I'm unsure about is the difference (if any) between detritivores and decomposers. My copy of Biology (the Neil Campbell text) seems to use the terms synonymously, however we have two separate articles on them. Yet looking at their definitions I'm failing to see any clear defining characteristics to separate the two concepts. I'm also unsure if there are any further differences between these two terms and the term saprotrophs, which again has its own article, but very similar characteristics.
Finally, and I'm not sure if it is a specific biological term itself, does scavenging actually include eating dead plant material as the article states, or is it limited to dead animals only? And if it is limited to this, how is it different from necrophagy?
Sorry to trouble you with these questions, but hopefully you'll understand these concepts a lot better than I do and be able to help with clarifying them for other readers as well. Richard001 10:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the celery blunder, and thanks for the correction. Actually, if the intent is to refer to stems broadly (to include rhizomes and perhaps other specialized stems), then Jerusalem artichoke probably was correct after all (I'm not going to look dumb again by expressing certainty on this point). Kingdon 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So what is the biological definition of weedy then? Surely a weed is a plant in the wrong place. So how can arabidopsis be in the wrong place if it is either in a natural habitat where it evolved or in a lab, where the researchers wish for it to grow??? SuperRuss
But that's not wholly true! Just think of an alien species invading an undisturbed eco-system. This species will be classed as a weed. Also, Rhododendron ponticum is a weed, but isn't adapted to agricultural settings. You're definition is flawed, and I doubt that 'Weed scientists' sit around talking about the definition of weeds all day, there is obviously more to the discipline.. 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 ( talk • contribs)
Yes it has occurred to me, but I am not concerned with it. I am simply stating that R. ponticum is a weed, but isn't a weed in your definition nor does it fit into your definition that they are suited to an agricultural setting!!! I never said encyclopedias shouldn't be concerned. I was referring to your statment that if weeds where just plants in the wrong place there wouldn't be a whole discipline of weed science. - to which I am stating that I am sure that weed scientists dont sit around all day JUST discussing what a weed is!!! Superruss 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
and there was me thinking that they are fungi and now I here that you are teaching that it they are plants! - pity really, because they are neither, they are protazoa....
I was just curious as to why you felt the need to remove my photo of the sedona brins fire from the Sedona, AZ page. Coffeegirlyme 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thought you might want to participate in a discussion at Talk:Ephedra regarding whether the genus article or medicine article should be at Ephedra, and what to call the medicine article if there is a switch.-- Eloil 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you reverting the edits made by an anon user who was adding "2006 census" data to various articles ( Arizona, for example). I just noticed that the US census page does list 2006 data, meaning that the anon user's edits were probably good. Just thought you should know. - Nick talk 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any 2006 numbers at the US Census site. For instance Apache County, Arizona's entry in the US Census site, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04001.html has a 2005 estimate but no 2006 numbers indicated on it. Could one of you two point me to the 2006 census data you're referencing? This anonymous IP has done a bit of editing in the days since and they very much seem to be insidious vandalism. Gruber76 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
In re your change here, I did in fact fix the link. All a red link means is that an article on the subject has not yet been written, and while that is often a sign that the link is inaccurate, it is not always. As you can see looking at the diff above, you would have seen that I changed where the link went, in effect, changing where a new article will be created if someone clicks there and decides to create an article. If you had gone further and gone to Serra Springs and clicked what links here, you would have noticed that multiple articles link there, all of the articles that mention the Kuruvunga Springs, and that nothing links to the Kuruvunga Springs article (also not created). What isn't mentioned in Puvunga, but is in other articles that discuss the springs in greater depth, is that the Kuruvunga springs are a California Historical Landmark, and are officially listed as Serra Springs. The springs are known mainly by the Tongva name, Kuruvunga, but as they are officially listed as a Historical Landmark by this other name, the article namespace should be created there, and that's why I changed where the Kuruvunga Springs links went. When a user has made an obvious content change as to where a link goes that you don't understand, you may want to look further in order to see if you can figure out what they were doing, or you may want to ask them. Either way, reverting a content change on the basis that a redlink exists where a redlink had existed before doesn't make sense. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 12:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope you return soon, we need you if wikipedia is to be of any use for those that want to learn about plant science, and I need you to correct my edits...I concur that the vandalism is frustrating and that sometimes it seems futile Hardyplants 11:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Curtis--I share your frustration with vandalism. In my opinion rampant vandalism is one of the major things keeping Wikipedia from being as great as it could be. Vandalizing accounts should be blocked immediately and permanently. Vandalism is one reason (among others) why I don't spend as much time editing Wikipedia articles anymore. It's frustrating to scan my watch list and realize that a huge number of the edits represent vandalism, petty or otherwise; I revert the really flagrant ones but otherwise have pretty much given up. MrDarwin 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully you'll return after your break. More scientists = better encyclopedia, bottom line. I blocked that account, FYI. I'm more of a hardliner against vandalism than some others because the fallout of vandalism isn't limited to damaged articles... — Scien tizzle 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
Welcome!
Hello, Curtis Clark/Archive 1, 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!
Thanks for highlighting the whole thing about the n-dash for me — I like to pretend to be a grammar pedant but obviously I still get it wrong! -- Lord Pheasant 06:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - Carya illinoinensis is correct; see Flora of North America and Letters, HortScience 26(11):1358 for details. - MPF 29 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for copyediting my plant articles. English not being my native language, I tend to have issues with vocabulary. Circeus
Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\ talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice work fixing the addition to Rancho Cucamonga, California. - Willmcw 21:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the category on Coast live oak. I ran a trial run on AWB, and you got to it before I did. --— Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you caught out my wrong usage of microgametophytes at male. Could you tell me whether a plant strictly has "male" gametes at all or are microgametophytes the closest cell plants contain? -- Oldak Quill 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I can't. I didn't write that material; I just edited the page to make it visible.
Well, it's a wiki, so you can edit it if you want. In my personal opinion, a "see also" should be sufficient, since the Burr article already explains all the other meanings. -- Russ Blau (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on deleting material on user talk pages. I will no longer do that. Dapoloplayer 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments on my discussion page ... Ingyhere 09:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the brilliant and techincally excel picture in the Salvia columbariae artice.
Hi! Professor Clark, would you please help me to verify if the picture in the link is Coyote gourd (Cucurbita digitata or palmata)? [1] Also, I would like to know if this species occurs in the Puente Hills Area naturally.
Secondly, I need you help to indentify this beautiful flower in a landscaped lawn. [2] Geographer 08:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I was at school when I replied to your comment and at the time I was a little upset about a grade that I had received in my Organic Chemistry test. I know I should not take my frustration on other people. Anyhow, I already requested permition to Cal Poly Pomona's webmaster for the usage of those pictures in Wikipedia. In case the request is denied I understand that the pictures must be deleted as they violate the author's copyright. Lufthmark 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Clark, please, consider the Template:Pre-Linnaean botanist. I made it as a follow-up of the article on Pierre Magnol by User:Wikiklaas. Don't you think it would be reasonable to apply it to the pre-linnaean botanists with author abbreviations instead of the Template:Botanist? Alexei Kouprianov 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Clark I have deleted the "No Rights Reserved" notice from the pictures that I wrongfully uploaded. If I have edited them incorrectly I would like to know as I would like to stop contributing to plagiarism myself in Wikipedia. I did not understand that being a Wikipedian is a great responsibility and should be taken seriously and professionally. Without people like you, people like me would make Wikipedia a mundane and inhospitable place. Thank You. Lufthmark. 29 March 2006
A , for your knowledgeable contributions to Wikipedia and the kindness with which you make them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Curtis, I'm sure the AD/BC (CE/BCE) thing has struck us all at some point. Single-character changes by an IP user usually are vandalism, so it's a good instinct... Cheers, --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed your User:Curtis Clark/BOT 343. This is an interesting development, which may work out well for wikipedia! Do you know if you are the first to adopt this policy? Brya 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So that's his actual name, and any similarity this guy is purely coincidental? — Apr. 10, '06 [04:12] < freakofnurxture | talk>
Not a problem. He's been fully unblocked. — Apr. 10, '06 [04:25] < freakofnurxture | talk>
Thank you for the support. Brya 08:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I said "full set of chromosomes" instead of "diploid..." was because many plants are polyploids, wouldn't it be more correct to say "full set" instead of "diploid set"? Diploid would mean they have a pair of each homologous chromosome, but they have more than two... right? -- TheAlphaWolf 22:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh right... and about the gametophytes... ALL plants undergo alternation of generations, therefore saying that in plants that do that is misleading as all of them do. Some algae also do it too. -- TheAlphaWolf 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the inappropriate image in the palo verde article. The species shown (Parkinsonia aculeata) is cultivated but not native of the USA, as far as I know. The same user inserted other unrelated images in a few other articles. I fixed the Amancay article.
Could you please check whether the caña brava she inserted in the article Phragmites belongs there? She told me
The Scientific Name of this Peruvian plant: GYNERIUN SAGITTATUM and its Family name is POACEAE. I hope this might help you. If you have any further questions, let me know. Regards --Evelyn Zuñiga 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Jclerman 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
yes i realise that, but it's not POV it's matter of fact, i did not say i was talking about the entire population, i was talking about the overall breed as it is naturally, bu i thank you for your say and i will incorporate it into what i have to say about doberman's but you must admit, that what i have said is justifiable—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis ( talk • contribs) .
thank you, you have helped me get a point accross in a less-hostile way. yet i feel you have missed out misunderstanding of dogs in the media.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis ( talk • contribs) .
i'm not stupid, i've used wikipedia for ages, i may have only just joined but i know how it works, so don't treat me like i'm stupid. i did list some, you removed them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucianotis ( talk • contribs) .
I am currently adding a transparent image placeholder so that the rows that doesn't have images doesn't get dwarfed by the rows that does. Also, it looks better that way than a short and wide box. Is that better the Image:Noimg.png since it's transparent and blank? G. H e 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - one I've never been able to find out: does pensylvanicum (in e.g. Acer pensylvanicum) constitute an error to be corrected to pennsylvanicum? William Penn can't be too amused, I'd suspect, but the species is (almost) always given with the original spelling with just the one 'n'. - MPF 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ex. 1. Retention of original spelling: The generic names Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and Amaranthus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus and the spelling is not to be altered to "Mesembrianthemum" and "Amarantus", respectively, although these latter forms are philologically preferable (see Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1928: 113, 287. 1928). - Phoradendron Nutt. (1848) is not to be altered to "Phoradendrum". - Triaspis mozambica A. Juss. (1843) is not to be altered to "T. mossambica", as in Engler (Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C: 232. 1895). - Alyxia ceylanica Wight (1848) is not to be altered to "A. zeylanica", as in Trimen (Handb. Fl. Ceylon 3: 127. 1895). - Fagus sylvatica L. (1753) is not to be altered to "F. silvatica". The classical spelling silvatica is recommended for adoption in the case of a new name (Rec. 60E), but the mediaeval spelling sylvatica is not an orthographical error. - Scirpus cespitosus L. (1753) is not to be altered to "S. caespitosus".
Thank you for correcting my bad article writing. ILovePlankton 15:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Curtis Clark! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Gl e n T C (Stollery) 06:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support - and a friendly hello! Your university home page was very interesting (Renaissance botanists, cracked me up!) and your proposal of Wikipedia as a learning tool couldn't be more correct. I myself use it as just that - going over, editting, verifying and seeking new informtion for pages is the sort of active learning I just can't seem to muster for my own personal notes at home, haha -- Serephine / talk - 03:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you're local! I'm at Rancho Santa Ana in the grad program there. I was wondering, do you think it might be helpful to have an article about the Jepson Manual and its history? At least in regards to the articles about California flora, it might be nice to have a pointer to something about Jepson and its importance in California floristics. -- Clickie 07:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Curtis. Didn't realize you were also a Wikipedian, but I'm not surprised. At any rate, I think of "insectivory" and "carnivory" as different things (and, indeed, the carnivore article does separate them, at least by considering one a specialized subset of the other). Just one of those cases where the technical definition versus what people mean when they use a term aren't quite the same, so I just felt it needed a little clarification. Peace, Dyanega 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Curtis, I apoligize for what my little brother did. We share a computer and he frequently vandalizes WIKIPEDIA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.160.34.153 ( talk • contribs) .
Not a problem. Maybe someday he'll decide to be a Wikipedian and make some important contributions.-- Curtis Clark 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - is it Acoelorraphe or Acoelorrhaphe? Original spelling is the former, and is used by FNA and USDA, while the second is used by GRIN despite acknowledging the original spelling. Any thoughts? - MPF 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis. I uploaded another version of the image. Please check [3] to see if it's up to your standards and add it to the article if you think it's of any use. I'm afraid I can't do any better than that with the equipment at hand. Adamantios 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware that I need to work on civility. It's just so frustrating to see what was a somewhat decent article become so screwed up over the past six months. -- Coolcaesar 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
While I fully agree that User:NinaSpeaking's placing of AFD tags on those articles was basically vandalism, I don't understand what you mean by "articles that are not part of the AfD process". Surely any article is part of the AfD process once someone nominates it for deletion. User:Angr 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
hey, man. I don't feel like signing my name. there's no rule that states that i need to. Thanks for wasing you time and going behind me, it's been fun.
Hi Curtis - two reasons; first, Cat:Fagaceae is still small enough to accomodate all the articles written for the family so far (having them all in one cat makes checking 'recent changes' for vandalism, etc., a lot quicker and easier), and second (because eventually, a Cat:Quercus may be needed), cats can't be moved, they have to be deleted and the new one created. Once Cat:Fagaceae has more than 200 articles (the most a cat page will show), that will be the time to make Cat:Quercus and re-cat them again; but with under 80 articles done so far, that's a long way away yet - MPF 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello
I Got your name there that u deleted my link of helpfulhealthtips.com in sex determination topic.
Can i know the reason! My Links are not spam.
They contain my own original articles which i contribute everywhere. I am a medical consultant and want to give my articles.
Please let me know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helpfulhealthtips ( talk • contribs) .
Okay, sorry! — Keenan Pepper 03:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - they are free in Pinus (i.e., only fused at the base, like all other Pinaceae). They are closely adpressed onto the seed scale and (usually) very short and stiff, but it is possible (by bending the scale down a bit) to get a a sheet of paper between the bract and scale, as in the pic right. - MPF 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that there are enough people that truely hate Coolcaesar for his overpassionate views and his degrading humanities, and the ways he approaches problems. He totally discriminates, irritates, and humiliates affiliates on situations that he particularly doesnt like. If you look at his talk page, it is full of hate and angry messages from people who were offended by his animal-like behavior, and it needs to stop. The summaries and discussions he carries out almost perpetuates fights to start, making people angry, and making them do things that they would not normally do. Looking at pages he has contributed (which he claims ownership of many) you will notice that on the talk page he has humiliated, trask-talked, and devalued someone who didnt agree with him like he was a communistic ruler. It is degrading to people for him to think that his status at Wikipedia allows him to be so abusive, and hurt people so bad mentally that they would do anything to retaliate against this maniac, and I think that this issue needs to be addressed. An Rfc should be in order, and I will be contacting ALL the people he has offended and degraded, which will take a long time because there are a lot of them, to get his power taken away from him and give him a taste of his own medicine. I will follow through and give the people so hurt by him JUSTICE! -- 69.232.62.33 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
I saw that you tagged Image:3pera4.jpg as a copyvio. However, the site that you said it was from had many many pictures of flowers, and I could not find the right picture. Could you point out which picture it is on the external site?
Many thanks, -- Where 03:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Jepson's Heteromeles arbutifolia or GRIN's Heteromeles salicifolia? GRIN seem pretty sure of their change but don't explain it. Looking at the respective basionyms, Photinia arbutifolia appears to have priority (1821 vs 1851) so if they're right, there must be some other reason for the change - MPF 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're talking about the bit I added about the South Dakota quarter trivia when you say it's POV. If this is not how I should communicate with you, I'm sorry, I'm a long time user of wikipedia, but only recently started editing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.115.0 ( talk • contribs) .
thanks for the fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLATE ( talk • contribs) .
To answer your question Curtis, no I have not edited the citrus article for a long time. Therefore I am not the same anon you speak of. By the way, if it helps I will provide edit summaries & I appreciate the welcome you gave me, but please delete the page you made for me. I deleted it from the Wikiproject Plants Talk page because I prefer TOTAL & COMPLETE ANONIMITY. I have no idea how you got that page back, but please delete it. I am not a vandal, just a general science enthusiast & I did not know about the edit summary part. As a matter of fact, I was looking for it the other day, not knowing what it was called or where it was located. Anyway I would appreciate if you would take down the page. It would mean a lot to me because I am afraid of hackers. Please take it down just in case, even if I am not in danger of hackers. I will check back at your talk page until you reply. - 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you do not trust me, just look at my edits. - 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Curtis Clark 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much.
By the way, what do you do when you post a message to a person who won't answer it (and, by the looks of it, won't answer anyone else's beyond a certain date) and you have proof that they have been using Wikipedia recently (which rules out that person not using his/her computer)?.
OK. - 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, the person in question is an admin. They in particular are supposed to answer queries and, though that person's earlier posts had been answered, the recent ones haven't. The situation in question was that the admin. had reverted one of my edits. All I wanted was to know why and the go back to my stuff. I didn't see anything wrong with my edit, except maybe it wasn't well written and that could have been fixed with a cleanup. Anyway, as I said, admins are supposed to answer comments, I think. Please Reply. - 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The person has already replied. By the way, I think the general wikipedia public already knows my page number as she replied there. Oh well. What's done is done. I'm not sure about making my own page, but I think I will keep that one as people are already answering to it. Thank you for your time, comments and advice. - 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Curtis, could you please look over the article Type (botany)? I need an outside opinion, preferably from somebody with some knowledge of botany, as to whether my edits are really as horrific as have been claimed. (Be sure to see the last version edited by me, before it was reverted by another editor.) MrDarwin 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - could you check over the latest by anon 60.41.38.215 to Ginkgo, please? Some of it seems useful, but other bits I'm less sure about - MPF 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
dude, you need to chill out, youre wayyy too mad off this bro! and yeah you come off as a PC-nazi dude, like for real yo. i understand that this is an encyclopedia but youre reaction has been extreme and was very rude and has a terribly antagonistic and mean tone. "where you didn't put the template; what's up with that" what do you mean whats up with that, am i perfect, am i sposed to know every single article where it could fit dude? geeze, if you care so damn much, BE BOLD add it yourself or be nice and message your concerns to me, its not point of view dude male/female.. humans isnt such a strech, but yeah i added Man and Woman since they are more fitting, but i.d.k. i think male and female might be merritted, so what if its not a human only article, i dont know hows its POV to add them to sexual identity but yeah whadya think Qrc2006 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the link i LMAO! and heh sorry about being rude, and theres no such thing as someone's template, alltho yeah i did create it and was tweaking it and trying to make it work and adding it to everywhere relevant, go ahead and add it wherever u think its appropriate this is a collaberation, never feel the need to not do somthing cuz its not your terriroty Qrc2006 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Me again! What happened to the Citrus article? I checked it out and it said that there is no article with that exact name. I had to check out the history to be able to see it. What's going on?! - 02:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Curtis, thank you for your message. I am not a big fan of vandalism, but I do think that when the same exact section is repeated in an article nine times in a row, it should be deleted. Please correct me if I am wrong. I reverted the article back, you are welcome to study the deleted fragments in greater detail to ensure that only redundant information was removed. User:Levan
I recently managed to get attribution for this image: Image:Delicate rose.jpg. I noticed from the talk page for rose that you know your stuff, and I was wondering whether you could identify it's class etc. so I could add it to the articles with a correct caption. Cheers, Daniel . Bryant 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to ask, can you make an article for Etiwanda, CA, Thanks. ( 66.174.92.162 08:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
All I could make is a stub, since I don't know a lot about the community. Would you add more? Also, it would be Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, California to follow a recent consensus on article titles for communities within incorporated cities.-- Curtis Clark 14:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to sign in this morning when I edited a few pages, soon after you added this message to my IP address' talk page:
“ | Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Curtis Clark 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | ” |
What are you talking about? As far as I can tell I didn't add any "nonsense". RyGuy17 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Mindspillage is currently sick. I suggest that you report your impostor(s) to WP:AIV, where you'll get a much faster response. 128.2.251.78 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick copyedit--it was one of those irritating little Wikipedia pages that completely ignore the local ethnobotany, and I didn't want to wait to edit, when I should have. KP Botany 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: "The spine article is actually incorrect; prickles are not spines" [4]. I won't agrue the point as I agree with you but wonder if the better course, then, would be to fix the Spine (botany) article, perhaps even renaming it (e.g. Prickle, Spine, and Thorn, rather than simply not link to it. Henryhartley 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've heard and seen paleoherb used a lot, and basal angiosperms, but don't find paleodicot used in my textbooks (Soltis and Soltis et al, and the latest Raven et al., will check Simpson's glossary), and it's used in half-a-dozen or less articles that I can find through internet searches, other than multiple references to the same articles. I've never heard it used in a seminar, although I have limited academic contacts. There are no dictionary definitions for it other than Brya's. Can you cite some paper sources that use this? Or a definition? Thanks. Yes, it's overblown in comparison to the APG III stuff, though. KP Botany 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the Spermatophyte talk page, and a similar diagram is inserted in the Plant article. I've posted a question about it on MPF's talk page as I think he is responsible for it. These diagrams need to be very carefully labeled, as they apparently represent the phylogeny produced from one particular research project, presented in a particular publication; it certainly doesn't represent any kind of consensus with regard to the interrelationships of the major groups. MrDarwin 14:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense:
Ears This is not true, however, of Dobermann ear cropping, which is usually done between 7 and 9 weeks of age.
What is not true?, it just starts saying that something is not true, but what is it?, that's why I edited it and left the 'Dobermann ear cropping is usually done between 7 and 9 weeks of age'. DamianFinol 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the correction...was wondering if you could give a few examples of a 'stem.' even after reading the article, i'm not too clear on the concept. thanks again. -- emerson7 | Talk 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
May i know why you have reverted Sage engine in sage ? -- SkyWalker 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my forgetting of this link at BUR. The redirect was made obviously necessary by the addition of the BUR airport code to burr... Circeus 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Encelias-in-Jepson, what do you make of apparent E. farinosa with leaves 10 cm long or more? Saw some planted along a new street here the other day, never seen Encelia leaves that big... Also, ran into some extreme leaf dimorphism on Frenchman Mountain, with 2-cm-leaf plants side-by-side with 6-cm-leaf plants, no blooms so can't tell if hybrids or what - can send you a photo if you're interested. Stan 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Professor Clark,
You sent me a message today implying that I am spamming Wikipedia with links for advertising and promotion. With all due respect to your botanical experience and level of participation on Wikipedia, I object.
I am a gardening and botany enthusiast. When I discovered I could be a part of perfecting Wikipedia's knowledgebase, I was ecstatic. This morning, I was merely supplying information to enhance and/or correct the pages that I edited. Specifically, the Juniperus squamata page on Wikipedia incorrectly refers to that species as Flaky Juniper, when it is known as Singleseed Juniper. I made that change (without deleting the words Flaky Juniper), but you undid it. You also deleted the reference that I added to substantiate the change. I added several other references to other Wikipedia Juniperus pages this morning to substantiate changes there as well, but you deleted them also.
I want you to know that I truly appreciate your veracious pursuit toward the integrity of Wikipedia. But I am writing to you to declare myself as someone who shares the same concerns and beliefs in that regard.
I welcome any suggestions you may have for us to work in unison and I look forward to your reply.
Fractaloctal 17:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you corrected my erroneous edit of the Maize article. Since I'm fairly clueless on nomenclature I was hoping you might be able to give me some advice.
-- Alf 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice :) -- Alf 02:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I saw your note on the talk page of the Peruvian pepper article (and responded to it there). I created the article from scratch at the beginning of this month, which is why there's no history before that. (I moved the redirect on Schinus molle too; it was pointing at Schinus.) I'd be grateful if you could have a look at the article; I'm not a botanist, just someone who's very interested in edible plants! Squeezeweasel 13:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Curtis, please re-read the last sentence of Art. 18.5, which I interpret to mean that the name Leguminosae cannot be used for the family in its narrow circumscription although I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the names Fabaceae and Papilionaceae. Is this saying that Papilionaceae must be used over both Fabaceae and Leguminosae when the family containing Faba is narrowly circumcribed? MrDarwin 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Enjoyed your recent comments on Taxocom (whatever the list serve is called). People add variety to articles in English, simply because English is a rich language, without the understanding that it really is rich, not all words are equal, and variety doesn't always enhance communication. KP Botany 17:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I found them at the French page, where all three have article. I can try to translate them or create stubs if you'd prefer me to. Jeannette Burr is a currently requested article for sports and Jeff Burr was the director of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I'm not clear how notable Courtney Burr is; he apparently worked on the theater versions of The Seven Year Itch and Sailor Beware. I just found about Australian politician Max Burr, too. Circeus 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone added a userbox to your user page, so I deleted it. I assume they meant to add it to their own, so I welcomed them to Wikipedia and popped the user box to their talk page for their convenience. KP Botany 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
User Spamreporter1 has made a proposal for the tagging issue. He was not previously involved with either project before seeing this discussion, and I belive that his opinion therefore is NPOV. The suggestion is that articles that have no state-wide scope be tagged only locally. Please go to this section on the SoCal page to provide input. — Scouter Sig 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to compile a section on how organisms are broken down when they die for the death article, however I'm having some difficulty understanding the subtleties of some of the terms used. One thing I'm unsure about is the difference (if any) between detritivores and decomposers. My copy of Biology (the Neil Campbell text) seems to use the terms synonymously, however we have two separate articles on them. Yet looking at their definitions I'm failing to see any clear defining characteristics to separate the two concepts. I'm also unsure if there are any further differences between these two terms and the term saprotrophs, which again has its own article, but very similar characteristics.
Finally, and I'm not sure if it is a specific biological term itself, does scavenging actually include eating dead plant material as the article states, or is it limited to dead animals only? And if it is limited to this, how is it different from necrophagy?
Sorry to trouble you with these questions, but hopefully you'll understand these concepts a lot better than I do and be able to help with clarifying them for other readers as well. Richard001 10:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the celery blunder, and thanks for the correction. Actually, if the intent is to refer to stems broadly (to include rhizomes and perhaps other specialized stems), then Jerusalem artichoke probably was correct after all (I'm not going to look dumb again by expressing certainty on this point). Kingdon 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So what is the biological definition of weedy then? Surely a weed is a plant in the wrong place. So how can arabidopsis be in the wrong place if it is either in a natural habitat where it evolved or in a lab, where the researchers wish for it to grow??? SuperRuss
But that's not wholly true! Just think of an alien species invading an undisturbed eco-system. This species will be classed as a weed. Also, Rhododendron ponticum is a weed, but isn't adapted to agricultural settings. You're definition is flawed, and I doubt that 'Weed scientists' sit around talking about the definition of weeds all day, there is obviously more to the discipline.. 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 ( talk • contribs)
Yes it has occurred to me, but I am not concerned with it. I am simply stating that R. ponticum is a weed, but isn't a weed in your definition nor does it fit into your definition that they are suited to an agricultural setting!!! I never said encyclopedias shouldn't be concerned. I was referring to your statment that if weeds where just plants in the wrong place there wouldn't be a whole discipline of weed science. - to which I am stating that I am sure that weed scientists dont sit around all day JUST discussing what a weed is!!! Superruss 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
and there was me thinking that they are fungi and now I here that you are teaching that it they are plants! - pity really, because they are neither, they are protazoa....
I was just curious as to why you felt the need to remove my photo of the sedona brins fire from the Sedona, AZ page. Coffeegirlyme 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thought you might want to participate in a discussion at Talk:Ephedra regarding whether the genus article or medicine article should be at Ephedra, and what to call the medicine article if there is a switch.-- Eloil 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you reverting the edits made by an anon user who was adding "2006 census" data to various articles ( Arizona, for example). I just noticed that the US census page does list 2006 data, meaning that the anon user's edits were probably good. Just thought you should know. - Nick talk 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any 2006 numbers at the US Census site. For instance Apache County, Arizona's entry in the US Census site, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04001.html has a 2005 estimate but no 2006 numbers indicated on it. Could one of you two point me to the 2006 census data you're referencing? This anonymous IP has done a bit of editing in the days since and they very much seem to be insidious vandalism. Gruber76 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
In re your change here, I did in fact fix the link. All a red link means is that an article on the subject has not yet been written, and while that is often a sign that the link is inaccurate, it is not always. As you can see looking at the diff above, you would have seen that I changed where the link went, in effect, changing where a new article will be created if someone clicks there and decides to create an article. If you had gone further and gone to Serra Springs and clicked what links here, you would have noticed that multiple articles link there, all of the articles that mention the Kuruvunga Springs, and that nothing links to the Kuruvunga Springs article (also not created). What isn't mentioned in Puvunga, but is in other articles that discuss the springs in greater depth, is that the Kuruvunga springs are a California Historical Landmark, and are officially listed as Serra Springs. The springs are known mainly by the Tongva name, Kuruvunga, but as they are officially listed as a Historical Landmark by this other name, the article namespace should be created there, and that's why I changed where the Kuruvunga Springs links went. When a user has made an obvious content change as to where a link goes that you don't understand, you may want to look further in order to see if you can figure out what they were doing, or you may want to ask them. Either way, reverting a content change on the basis that a redlink exists where a redlink had existed before doesn't make sense. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 12:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope you return soon, we need you if wikipedia is to be of any use for those that want to learn about plant science, and I need you to correct my edits...I concur that the vandalism is frustrating and that sometimes it seems futile Hardyplants 11:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Curtis--I share your frustration with vandalism. In my opinion rampant vandalism is one of the major things keeping Wikipedia from being as great as it could be. Vandalizing accounts should be blocked immediately and permanently. Vandalism is one reason (among others) why I don't spend as much time editing Wikipedia articles anymore. It's frustrating to scan my watch list and realize that a huge number of the edits represent vandalism, petty or otherwise; I revert the really flagrant ones but otherwise have pretty much given up. MrDarwin 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully you'll return after your break. More scientists = better encyclopedia, bottom line. I blocked that account, FYI. I'm more of a hardliner against vandalism than some others because the fallout of vandalism isn't limited to damaged articles... — Scien tizzle 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |