![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. EauOo has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
![]() |
Hello! EauOo,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice! (Great signon too.) Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. (For the compliment and noticing the sign-on--you have no idea how many were rejected before I could think of something fun and usable!)
The article could use some work, though. If you can edit anything, that would be appreciated. -- EauOo ( talk) 20:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Cylindrospermum, EauOo!
Wikipedia editor Ironholds just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for this great new article! :)
To reply, leave a comment on Ironholds's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
You should have been here half a decade ago; Wikipedia would have been more to your liking. You've run into some common problems:
All that said, I agree that "algae" is an ecological entity, but I think they are merely "not plants" rather than "simpler than plants": kelps have cells that are so similar to sieve tubes that they give me the willies (I use them as the most astounding example of convergent evolution), and in general their similarities to plants are uncanny.
If you want to work on articles where you don't get crapped on, go for individual species and genera that are not of economic importance. There are many thousands of them yet to be written, similar articles serve as a good guide, and if you reference them, you never get challenged.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.Yes, I shoot images of kelps (and all other plants), and I write about the brown algae, they are amazing, and I wish I could time travel a hundred million years to their future. EncycloPetey's defense mechanisms, however, blinded him to everything but arguing. The article now basically says what he disagrees with that I can rewrite in comprehensible and documented prose to show the diversity and complexity of the simple while emphasizing the real complexity and beauty. But I can also just write hundreds of articles on species and genera. Thanks. Eau ( talk) 01:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And by images, I mean the beautiful micrographs that give you the willies when looking at the cellular differentiation in the Laminariales. Eau ( talk) 01:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Some are online, and you have probably already seen some. I am going to start uploading to Wikipedia with permission from my research institute. That is kind of where I was going with the algae article. I am still more comfortable being anonymous, though. Eau ( talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your contribution on the talk page of the article Tree where you advocate, as far as I can make out, returning to the original version rather than trying to improve mine. I am absolutely baffled by this, and the comments of others. Please could you explain what is wrong with my version. Have I got the botanical details wrong? Is the structure unsatisfactory? Is it too simplistic? Is my article really the rubbish that Mark Marathon tries to make out? Or is this the wrong way to go about improving an article as basic as Tree (see the section on Algae above)? Please be frank. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Eau, I noticed a comment you left on Ironholds' talk page about having access to sources. You don't have anything that could get me access to this do you? It's a spanish language book, so it would need to be in a library database of some sort. Ryan Vesey 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The reference I found on wikispecies was this: Guiry, M.D. (2010). Oocystaceae. In: Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. (2010). AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=160589 on 2010-11-09
however the validity of this seems extremely doubtful.
Great to see additions to List of botanists by author abbreviation. Can I just ask that you keep to the format of the existing entries? In an entry like:
the two "dashes" are en-dashes, not hyphens (if you're not sure how to enter these, I suggest just copying an earlier line and changing the relevant bits) and the dates should be in parentheses, giving:
On my system (Mac OS X, Firefox) the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash isn't visible, but it can affect some searches. It's a bit annoying that the style adopted in this page isn't exactly the same as IPNI, so copy-and-paste needs some changes. Thanks! Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Some real fruit for you, much nicer than the fruit of the white fir (oh, sorry, you probably didn't want to hear those, or the lovely bouquet of flowers that precedes them, mentioned)! When I came back to see what had happened to that page, it was very good to see that you had cleared that section away entirely. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. I would've gone for pine nuts, too, but these look like Watsonville strawberries, so I am all over them. Now, be good and get thee to the tree talk page and help keep that reproductive ba$#ard out of the article, for which I thank thee in advance. Eau ( talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
By which I mean only the words, not their author. Eau ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please replace the section of the article Tree that you removed. See here for wikipedia policy on the subject. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 03:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies, you are correct, this is not a blog, the article coal scrip is neutral and will remain so Coal town guy ( talk) 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on my BRFA. Sorry if you feel it's a closed shop. I'm perfectly happy to help with the algae category if and when the bot is approved. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
... to parse your recent comment at the Teahouse, but I came away with the sense you thought I was criticizing you. If I misread you, never mind, if that's what you thought, I actually agree with you. Sorry if there was any confusion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome. I've moved the discussion here to avoid cluttering the FAC page. I'm a little concerned about what appears to be a good faith, but possibly unilateral, policy change in referencing biological authorities on Wikipedia. I assume that you're not actually challenging the fact of the correct authority being Linneaus 1758, so it comes down to the referencing.
Life's too short to make too much of a deal on this, and obviously it's up to you, but I think it would be better if there was a discussion at an appropriate forum (Tree of Life project?). If I've missed such a discussion, my apologies, and ignore the above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I am getting called pedantic a lot on Wikipedia. I do realize that taxonomy is a foreign planet to most people, but I have seen well-written articles on Wikipedia with Linneaus in the taxobox, but the current taxonomy backed up by a modern reliable source, as it should be, and even when still tied only to Linneaus as an authority. I will correct the existing FAs. Eau ( talk) 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
(belatedly) I must say it makes sense to have a current taxonomic authority reference. I'd not thought of that even though it is obvious. Maybe the consensus/current secondary/consensus ref for the taxobox, which leaves the historical ref(such as Linnaeus, Persoon etc. for the prose where it was described)....hmmm. Agree pedantry is good. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion about the issue here. Eau ( talk) 19:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
So I wanted to look up Alexandrium. At least there was a hatnote directing me to the two species with articles, but no sign of Alexandrium (genus). Not a surprise that Gonyaulaceae and even Gonyaulacaceae are redlinks, but Gonyaulacales is a redirect to Gonyaulax. And Dinophyceae redirects to dinoflagellate, which has nothing useful about classification of the group. I don't want to just go in and fix deprecated names; do you know what system people are using now? Should I ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 04:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You have been helpful in improving Common toad which is currently at FAC. This is just to take you up on the offer you made on September 9th to sort out the Taxonomy section which, as you rightly point out, is beyond my capabilities. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Automatic Strikeout 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
==Zapata Rail==a As far as I know, and I may be wrong, the Zapata Rail, has never had another binomial name. So it wasn't clear to me why the Birdlife ref, already present elsewhere, needed to replace the original source. To me, the fact that the original name and the current name were the same, and both referenced, adds to an article, whereas you seem to think the original name detracts from the article. But life's too short... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. Automatic Strikeout 22:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. EauOo has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
![]() |
Hello! EauOo,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice! (Great signon too.) Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. (For the compliment and noticing the sign-on--you have no idea how many were rejected before I could think of something fun and usable!)
The article could use some work, though. If you can edit anything, that would be appreciated. -- EauOo ( talk) 20:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Cylindrospermum, EauOo!
Wikipedia editor Ironholds just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for this great new article! :)
To reply, leave a comment on Ironholds's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
You should have been here half a decade ago; Wikipedia would have been more to your liking. You've run into some common problems:
All that said, I agree that "algae" is an ecological entity, but I think they are merely "not plants" rather than "simpler than plants": kelps have cells that are so similar to sieve tubes that they give me the willies (I use them as the most astounding example of convergent evolution), and in general their similarities to plants are uncanny.
If you want to work on articles where you don't get crapped on, go for individual species and genera that are not of economic importance. There are many thousands of them yet to be written, similar articles serve as a good guide, and if you reference them, you never get challenged.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.Yes, I shoot images of kelps (and all other plants), and I write about the brown algae, they are amazing, and I wish I could time travel a hundred million years to their future. EncycloPetey's defense mechanisms, however, blinded him to everything but arguing. The article now basically says what he disagrees with that I can rewrite in comprehensible and documented prose to show the diversity and complexity of the simple while emphasizing the real complexity and beauty. But I can also just write hundreds of articles on species and genera. Thanks. Eau ( talk) 01:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And by images, I mean the beautiful micrographs that give you the willies when looking at the cellular differentiation in the Laminariales. Eau ( talk) 01:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Some are online, and you have probably already seen some. I am going to start uploading to Wikipedia with permission from my research institute. That is kind of where I was going with the algae article. I am still more comfortable being anonymous, though. Eau ( talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your contribution on the talk page of the article Tree where you advocate, as far as I can make out, returning to the original version rather than trying to improve mine. I am absolutely baffled by this, and the comments of others. Please could you explain what is wrong with my version. Have I got the botanical details wrong? Is the structure unsatisfactory? Is it too simplistic? Is my article really the rubbish that Mark Marathon tries to make out? Or is this the wrong way to go about improving an article as basic as Tree (see the section on Algae above)? Please be frank. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Eau, I noticed a comment you left on Ironholds' talk page about having access to sources. You don't have anything that could get me access to this do you? It's a spanish language book, so it would need to be in a library database of some sort. Ryan Vesey 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The reference I found on wikispecies was this: Guiry, M.D. (2010). Oocystaceae. In: Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. (2010). AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=160589 on 2010-11-09
however the validity of this seems extremely doubtful.
Great to see additions to List of botanists by author abbreviation. Can I just ask that you keep to the format of the existing entries? In an entry like:
the two "dashes" are en-dashes, not hyphens (if you're not sure how to enter these, I suggest just copying an earlier line and changing the relevant bits) and the dates should be in parentheses, giving:
On my system (Mac OS X, Firefox) the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash isn't visible, but it can affect some searches. It's a bit annoying that the style adopted in this page isn't exactly the same as IPNI, so copy-and-paste needs some changes. Thanks! Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Some real fruit for you, much nicer than the fruit of the white fir (oh, sorry, you probably didn't want to hear those, or the lovely bouquet of flowers that precedes them, mentioned)! When I came back to see what had happened to that page, it was very good to see that you had cleared that section away entirely. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. I would've gone for pine nuts, too, but these look like Watsonville strawberries, so I am all over them. Now, be good and get thee to the tree talk page and help keep that reproductive ba$#ard out of the article, for which I thank thee in advance. Eau ( talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
By which I mean only the words, not their author. Eau ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please replace the section of the article Tree that you removed. See here for wikipedia policy on the subject. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 03:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies, you are correct, this is not a blog, the article coal scrip is neutral and will remain so Coal town guy ( talk) 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on my BRFA. Sorry if you feel it's a closed shop. I'm perfectly happy to help with the algae category if and when the bot is approved. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
... to parse your recent comment at the Teahouse, but I came away with the sense you thought I was criticizing you. If I misread you, never mind, if that's what you thought, I actually agree with you. Sorry if there was any confusion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome. I've moved the discussion here to avoid cluttering the FAC page. I'm a little concerned about what appears to be a good faith, but possibly unilateral, policy change in referencing biological authorities on Wikipedia. I assume that you're not actually challenging the fact of the correct authority being Linneaus 1758, so it comes down to the referencing.
Life's too short to make too much of a deal on this, and obviously it's up to you, but I think it would be better if there was a discussion at an appropriate forum (Tree of Life project?). If I've missed such a discussion, my apologies, and ignore the above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I am getting called pedantic a lot on Wikipedia. I do realize that taxonomy is a foreign planet to most people, but I have seen well-written articles on Wikipedia with Linneaus in the taxobox, but the current taxonomy backed up by a modern reliable source, as it should be, and even when still tied only to Linneaus as an authority. I will correct the existing FAs. Eau ( talk) 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
(belatedly) I must say it makes sense to have a current taxonomic authority reference. I'd not thought of that even though it is obvious. Maybe the consensus/current secondary/consensus ref for the taxobox, which leaves the historical ref(such as Linnaeus, Persoon etc. for the prose where it was described)....hmmm. Agree pedantry is good. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion about the issue here. Eau ( talk) 19:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
So I wanted to look up Alexandrium. At least there was a hatnote directing me to the two species with articles, but no sign of Alexandrium (genus). Not a surprise that Gonyaulaceae and even Gonyaulacaceae are redlinks, but Gonyaulacales is a redirect to Gonyaulax. And Dinophyceae redirects to dinoflagellate, which has nothing useful about classification of the group. I don't want to just go in and fix deprecated names; do you know what system people are using now? Should I ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 04:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You have been helpful in improving Common toad which is currently at FAC. This is just to take you up on the offer you made on September 9th to sort out the Taxonomy section which, as you rightly point out, is beyond my capabilities. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Automatic Strikeout 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
==Zapata Rail==a As far as I know, and I may be wrong, the Zapata Rail, has never had another binomial name. So it wasn't clear to me why the Birdlife ref, already present elsewhere, needed to replace the original source. To me, the fact that the original name and the current name were the same, and both referenced, adds to an article, whereas you seem to think the original name detracts from the article. But life's too short... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. Automatic Strikeout 22:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)