User talk:KarlM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please see my reply to your comments on the Moa-nalo. It's good to have more people around that know about birds, plants and all things interesting!

Again, welcome!  Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Action is undertaken![edit]

Actually, there is action, the genera are already described, not yet published. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? When is that going to happen, and who is doing it? How is Idiomyia (or the others for that matter) going to be defined morphologically? KarlM 07:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I send you an e-mail, this is not yet for public viewing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It was your old university e-mail, could not find the new one. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

500+ species[edit]

I am curious, where are the descriptions of the 125 additional species, which I can not find, nor major scholars in the field, or is this figure the estimated number including the underscribed species? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes; I was just going back to clarify that when you wrote. It's a minimum, as there are at least 200 that have been collected but not described. I've gotten 20 myself in a relatively small area. There's an often-quoted figure that there are likely to be over 1000 total (including Scaptomyza), but I think that might be a little high. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility though.
Also, there are quite a few species outside of Hawaii with patterned wings. Even immigrans has marks, albeit faint ones. I put one up on the page as an example. Unfortunately the better pictures are not mine to post, but if you'd like I can email them to you. When I get some better pictures scanned in (and get around to it) I'll do a separate page on the Hawaiian drosophilids. KarlM 07:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, and here is the crux. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it publishes what is know, not what is speculated as it is not a cristal ball. I know, this can be frustratng, but there are slight different criteria for writing than in science. Anyway, the problem can be easily solved. Dr. Bachli keeps his database up to date, so the approximate number of actuall described species is pretty well know there, and a subsentence can indicate that the expected number is a magnitude larger. That makes it accurate in both ways.
I have actually a whole series of publisable images, but they are from wings only, but they can provide a nice example of the variation. This includes wings of within and outside the Hawaiians (Samoaia, elegans, immigrans, gutifera). I never came around of adding those because they are loose wings, but at an appropriate place, they can be donw. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lake Waiau[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that it was my fault for putting in those extra quotes. I didn't use VandalProof for that edit. I was stub sorting and I must've done something by accident to put that extra quote in. Sorry. --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Lono[edit]

I saw and appreciated what you were trying to do with the indented quotes in Lono, but I thought it looked a bit un-wiki - especially such a large indented quote - I can't recall seeing anything similar elsewhere on Wikipedia. I think you're right, it might be better to paraphrase it a bit more and integrate it better into the article. There might also be a case for making it a separate article (maybe/eventually) since it is slightly off topic - its not about Lono per se as a traditional Hawaiian god (about whom we need more verified information) but about the possible misidentification of Cook as Lono. Maybe if it was a standalone article, it could be linked by the Lono and the Cook articles. By the way, I am working my way gradually thru all the Polynesian mythology articles to source, verify and expand them, I'd prefer if someone from Hawaii did the Hawaiian articles, but I may be the only Polynesian willing to give it a go, and I do have a good book collection here at home. Kahuroa 10:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rafflesiaceae[edit]

Can you confirm that you have seen the actual paper in question? So far I have seen only the abstract and numerous news stories about it. I'm skeptical of all the edits being made based on secondary sources (news reports!) and particularly the attempts to edit the article to reflect a new classification of this group. Did the authors formally transfer Rafflesia and its relatives to Euphorbiaceae? Given the mess that is euphorb classification right now (even the family circumscription is problematic, with recent molecular work showing that Euphorbiaceae as traditionally circumscribed is polyphyletic or paraphyletic), I would be surprised if they had. MrDarwin 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have; you can get a copy of it here[1] . They didn't make any changes to the classification; I'm actually a taxonomist (though for insects, not plants), so I know how the system works. If you look at the section I added it says "If these results are confirmed" and gives alternatives for fixing the situation. Granted, this doesn't address the other monophyly problems with Euphorbiaceae, but I think it's sufficient in the context of Rafflesiaceae. Also, the authors didn't mention what conception of Euphorbiaceae they were using; the tree I made is almost directly from the paper, and they didn't show any outgroups.
It's funny, because when I first say a news story about it, it had a picture of a Rafflesia flower and for some reason I thought as I was reading the intro, "I bet it turns out to be a euphorb", and that's what it was! Something about those petals reminds me of the fleshy, stubby "petals" on Euphorbia. KarlM 08:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That pretty much confirms my suspicions and I've also now seen the online supporting material, which includes the phylogenetic tree showing that Rafflesiaceae is sister to the bulk of "higher" euphorbs but that a rather isolated and apparently monophyletic group of odd genera branched off before the Rafflesiaceae/Euphorbiaceae split. The authors may very well create a new family for this group, in order to retain Rafflesiaceae as a monophyletic family, but they will probably want to look at morphology and other non-molecular characters, as well as add more genera to the molecular studies, before making any changes to the classification. MrDarwin 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Avian malaria[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for your addition to malaria. Could you find a reference you can add to the article on this subject? Thanks. TimVickers 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks again. TimVickers 17:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Acacia koaia[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for your concern about the edit I made as I forgot to post my reference. Here's the link: http://www.ntbg.org/plants/plant_details.php Thricecube 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Drosophila sperm[edit]

Funny you should ask! I saw that you reverted my addition (which in retrospect probably wasn't needed), so I was looking for refs. I'm just looking at a ref that shows that Drosophilae have the largest relative and absolute sperm sizes. I'm going to add it to the article. If you're interested it is PMID 17377954. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost done adding the above ref. Pitnick and another Joly paper are the original reports of the 6 cm thing. The above paper shows measurements of sperm from D. melanogaster and 10 repleta group species. I may move the ref to later in the para. And I'm not adding back the relative to size thing -- it's not necessary! Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics[edit]

Thanks for the message. I'm aware of the discussion and the associated page moves that have been made recently (such as Talk:Iao Valley). Frankly, there are good arguments on both sides, for and against the use of diacritics on Wikipedia. I think the problem is that many of us are tired of these constant arguments (this particular argument has been going on for at least three years) and would prefer to work on improving and building Wikipedia instead of going around and around on the talk pages. There are editors who may wish to contribute to this discussion, like User:Gilgamesh and User:Ling.Nut. I would appreciate it greatly if you contact them; it may mean more coming from you. Thanks again. —Viriditas | Talk 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I know exactly what you mean and I could probably write an essay on the subject. Perhaps greater emphasis should be placed on WP:IAR? :-) —Viriditas | Talk 12:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Matipo[edit]

Why did you merge this back with Myrsine? Matipo only include a small part of Myrsine, and unless there is some strong reason why they don't deserve a separate page then they should be kept separate. It's especially misleading to include the list of New Zealand species as if that was the entire genus, when there are many more species in total. I think it would be much better if the genus page only included things that are applicable to the entire group, and things like species lists are left to separate articles on subgroups. I was planning to do this for the Hawaiian species soon. KarlM 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions only merit articles if it's based on a taxonomic subdivision, otherwise they're only expanded disambiguation pages. If the common name "matipo" refers to all the species in that earlier list, then those should be listed in a disambiguation page at that name. I suspect this large of a genus does have subgenera and sections, perhaps, but I just don't have the resources handy to find out which species are in which division. Do you happen to have the most recent taxonomic monograph available? I have a hunch that what you were planning to do is fairly close to the taxonomy since geographic subdivisions are often represented in the taxonomy. But the titles should follow the taxonomy, such as Stylidium subg. Andersonia. --Rkitko (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like we overlapped, I just saw your post on the Myrsine talk page. I see your point, but until there are actual articles for at least a large portion of the species (not just irritating stubs that people keep making, that only say "XXX is a species of tree. It lives in New Zealand"), it should stay as is. When those articles get done, then the thing to do would be to just remove the taxobox, leaving the article as a link to the species and descriptor for the New Zealand species in particular. I'm not a Myrsine expert so I don't know how applicable the descriptive characters are to the whole genus as opposed to only the New Zealand species, so I put them back with matipo. Hope this clears up my reasons for putting things back. KarlM 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we overlapped again! Though I wholly disagree. Unless we know the taxonomy, we should not be splitting genus articles into geographic subdivisions. There's no precedent for what you're proposing. Information like this is either placed in individual species articles, the genus article, or other taxonomic subdivisions like subgenera or sections. As an aside, I don't find those Polbot stubs irritating - I find them valuable. Some of those articles would have not gotten started for years if not for Polbot. Though I am following the path and cleaning up some problems left behind by Polbot. But I digress... I'm not a Myrsine expert either, nor can I locate any pertinent information on its taxonomy that's reliable. So I would suggest that until we knew that the divisions we were making are accurate to the taxonomy, we should maintain all the information in the genus article. Rkitko (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes[edit]

There is now, despite the fact that the article passed strenuous FA examination, an NPOV tag on it. I have answered the questions that you have raised. Would you please take a look at my responses.

People are treating this issue as if there are two perfectly balanced sides to it. There are not. Amandajm (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

tombola? tombolo?[edit]

Hallo, Is the article you created at Tombola (island) just a mis-spelled duplicate of Tombolo, or am I missing something? Oxford English Dictionary doesn't recognise Tombola as anything other than a sort of lottery, but I'm not a marine geographer, nor a speaker of US English! PamD (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Xixuthrus[edit]

Many of the specimens in the possession of Fijians are egregiously misidentified; that's why I was flown out to Fiji a few years back - the Schlinger Foundation was helping the Fijians who wanted to implement conservation measures for X. heros, but they'd quickly found that the specimens they had available were a mishmash of stuff, with no one agreeing on how many species there were, what their names were, or where they occurred within the archipelago. How do you protect something you can't even identify correctly? I was sent in to play The Fixer, as it were, and make sense out of the mess. The Taveuni beetle is, in fact, restricted to the island of Taveuni (funny thing about that), so one can only wonder how on earth anyone decided that specimen from Korotogo was that species. Now you also see first-hand what I was saying on Taxacom about how taxonomists need to help maintain Wikipedia. ;-) Incidentally, if you know a way to contact the folks at Kula, you might pass that specimen ID along. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Akekee&Metrosideros[edit]

According to the bird's factsheet [2] , it "feeds almost exclusively in terminal leaf clusters of ohi`a trees", that alone suffices for a See Also, doesnt it?

I understand your concern of a long list of birds/insects associated to this tree. That is why I am only adding Akekee at the See Also only because it is a Critically Endangered species, very much unlike, say, the Apapane or others. MOUNTOLIVE]] fedeli alla linea 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your comments about Gerald Celente article[edit]

I agree with you that the Gerald Celente article is a lopsided, one-way advertising piece for Celente, and badly done at that. Most "references" in the article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I spent a day researching the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly 2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain). , and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I expect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the wikipedia article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's always making gloom-and-doom predictions (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I rewrote much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". Would you side with me in this dispute please? Please go to the Celente page and revert the article to my revised version which says "Extensive Re-Edit..."? I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

90 minutes[edit]

Are you sure it was 90 min.? Kdammers (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for Your answer. I had gone back a few edits and hadn't seen where it had changed. Your answer convinces me. Kdammers (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Iao Valley[edit]

I would like your help in bringing this article to at least good article status. Do you have the time? Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably not for the next couple of weeks, at least in terms of major research. It looks like it's got a long way to go, and I don't know much about it so I may not be the best point man for it. KarlM (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I've got many of the sources. You can always start with Kyselka and Lanterman (1980) which has a good, general overview. I'll help out as time permits so perhaps you can monitor the article for any changes and recommend how to proceed. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pele and Kane[edit]

Mahalo for your fixes! If you get around to it, in Pele it says Hi'iaka is her favorite sister. She had 13 (I think) sisters named Hi'iaka. Her favorite was Hi'iakaikapoliopele. Makana Chai (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there are lots of different versions, and I don't have the refs to put it all together. It seems like Kāne-milo-hai is the same as Kāne-hekili, but I wasn't sure so I left it out. The whole mythology category is pretty much a disaster right now; the Pele article is the only one that's passable (which is okay I guess since it's the only one most people will read), but after looking up Kāne-milo-hai I noticed that much of it is ripped straight from Beckwith's Hawaiian Mythology. Unfortunately I don't have a copy myself, the various Pele stories just happen to be what's available for viewing on Google books. One of these days... KarlM (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

haole[edit]

I appreciate your interest in making this a better article, however the way to do that is not by removing well referenced material. What we need there are references and quotations from recognized authorities who agree with you. Mahalo.Makana Chai (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They're "well referenced" only in the sense that they were repeating the folk etymology. And they are, incidentally, an article in Paradise of the Pacific and a supposed secondhand account by Madeleine L'Engle, not reliable sources; one might as well cite the Molokaʻi Dispatch, which was where I first heard the myth. Meanwhile there is much better evidence that the word "haole" predates European contact. While this was cited in the article, the article is dominated by repetition of the erroneous interpretation, so it makes it sound like there is a genuine academic disagreement. There's no evidence that that's the case. KarlM (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's talk over at talk:haole Makana Chai (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection request on Mauna Loa[edit]

I've protected the article for three days. Hopefully that will be enough to settle it down. I tunred it down earlier because it looked like it had stopped. Sorry, I was wrong. GedUK  20:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Do you have access to the articles on the Springerlinks website?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Some, but our subscriptions are a bit limited. What do you need? KarlM (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Haole[edit]

Please don't remove all the discussions from a talk page. If you have comments, just add them in, don't take everything else out in the process. KarlM (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything was removed it was unintentional. I hope you put them back in. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Billy Nair (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A. grayanum[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I'm declaring myself a nonparticipant for the moment and will watch how this turns out. I bow to your expertise regarding doubts about those sources which I used for common names only, I believe. Certainly the alternative names raised flags. I am working on a related subject and hope you review it more favorably.Alawa (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted to Fugetaboutit's page under the grayanum thread. Thanks again for your work on that entry, the end result of which I have no real argument about, and I want you to know I have created an entry for the Mauna Kea silversword which I hope you will find more satisfactory. I believe it is ok as a start, as far as it goes, but needs more current information than I possess. Looking forward to any thoughts you have.Alawa (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous response.Alawa (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Drosophila[edit]

I answer to you in the discussion page of the article. Flakinho (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Any more pics?[edit]

Hello, it looks like you uploaded several good pictures a while back to illustrate Hawaii articles. In particular, some very nice ones of Lake Waiau. Is there any chance you have one of the Mauna Kea Adz Quarry? From the USGS map it is right below the lake. If you have not noticed, there has been a flurry of activity recently to improve Mauna Kea related articles, so it is sad that a National Historic Landmark has no photo at all. Thanks much for any help. W Nowicki (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't; I've only been up to Waiau once and didn't go to the quarry. It's funny, I've been to the summits of nearly all the volcanoes, but not the one you can drive right up to. I only just skimmed the Mauna Kea article, haven't had time to look it over. KarlM (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

edit war haole[edit]

Hi there, our friend is back with his haole rot and haole song. I have never had to deal with a situation like this. I know there is something about a 3 revert rule, etc., but I haven't had to take someone up on it before. Would you be willing to handle it? Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Inter" in "intercourse" meaning between two beings[edit]

Hello, KarlM. Would you mind commenting in the above linked section, since it concerns one of your edits? Flyer22 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Kalawao Catholic church inside.jpg[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any photographer specified. Did you take the photo yourself? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was taken by me. Not sure how to add the tag after uploading the picture. KarlM (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the file information page, stating your edit to your talk page as source for this change. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

I changed the request for speedy deletion into a normal possibly unfree files discussion so that its copyright status can be discussed. User:Ronhjones found a copy of the photo on an external web site, but it seems that the web site belongs to you. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 29#File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Berkeley area photo requests[edit]

Hi! Do you do photo requests? If so, there are some photo ideas in Albany, California and Berkeley, California which you may be interested in WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Now What? A Guide to Retirement During Volatile Times[edit]

Your proposal for deleting the article was removed by User:Adotrde. I've restored it. Autarch (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

First National Innovation Brokers[edit]

Hi, I had a look at another article edited by Adotrde and listed some of the problematic links at Talk:First National Innovation Brokers. Autarch (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

More odd references at Talk:Magic PDF Editor - the CNET link link is OK, though duplicated, but the others have serious problems. Autarch (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I left comments here concerning the dubious references. Autarch (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple AfDs[edit]

Multiple listing of items at AfD need to be on closely related topics with the same factors applying. Listing ABSc of attraction, a company, along with two unrelated books just confuses the issue. I've closed the AfD for the books as a speedy G11, and relisted the ABCs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABCs of attraction, where you will probably want to comment. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted![edit]

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)|}

Regarding the Uchunari Page[edit]

Dear KarlM,

I do want to improve the Uchunari article and I will be pleased to be helped and give answers about your doubts.

  • They do exist previous references regarding the Uchunari [3] and also a video [4]

It's true it is a new product and we are the first buyer.

  • The price is high because it's packaged in a gold plated silver box designed by a silversmith. And also because it's the uchunari grade 0 meaning that's every single bean has been screened and very few of them are perfect beans. There is also a grade 1 which is cheaper.

By the way thanks for the precision of the name coati. The Uchunari is the name of the civet cat coming from the Peru.

  • We will delete the note from the terraneraworld website to keep the wikipedia as neutral as possible.
  • To conclude, I want to do the best to improve the article in order to fit with the wikipedia policy and I am aware of the fact that I am a new wiki user so I could have made mistakes.

Many thanks in advance for your help. --Annerella (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Munida[edit]

Hi Karl,

Could you send me a copy of the Komai paper you cited at Munida, please? I was aware of the publication, but did not have access to it, and so could not cite it. (I also think that describing editors as "boneheaded" is probably unhelpful, especially when one editor has already been blocked for making personal atttcks.) --Stemonitis (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No I can't, because it doesn't exist. In fact, as far as can be determined, the journal hasn't published in 2012 and possible 2011 either. See the talk page. KarlM (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Uchunari on Kopi Luwak page[edit]

Dear KarlM,

We just realized that you removed the Uchunari Part on the Kopi Luwak page .... You first wanted to remove our own page and you got what you want. But now, seriously??

Yes, our product is for sale and is being sold all over the world, and yes it's not known everywhere. BUT, our product is REAL, and obviously in the Kopi Luwak page, everyone can see that the paragraph about the Uchunari coffee is NOT any kind of an advertisement, any sales procedure. It is purely FACTUAL and an additional information about the civet coffee. What the hell is going on here, what do you want!? Please stop hassling us and accept the fact this is real, you have no right to hide real and factual information about anything. --95.246.144.140 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Kopi Luwak, see my comments there. KarlM (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

notable reviews[edit]

re your edit here [5] note that the source is one of the professional reviews listed at rotten tomatoes. [6] why wouldnt we be able to include the specifics ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

RT includes a lot of reviewers who are just individuals blogging. This site seems to be more than that, but just pointing out that being on RT doesn't mean much (and they're not on the "Top Critics" page). The part that was in the article didn't add anything to it since it talked about "what parents should know" (which seems to be the main focus of the site), kind of a silly thing when discussing a political documentary. KarlM (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Argyroxiphium sandwicense Waipahoehoe small.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Argyroxiphium sandwicense Waipahoehoe small.jpg, which you've sourced to FLICKR=All rights reserved. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Serves me right for trying to do the right thing. Uploaded the cropped version to the Flickr site and put the license to CC-SA. KarlM (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Greater Koa Finch[edit]

Both species of koa finch became extinct around 1896, well before compact cameras, and existed only in remote forests. Very few non-Hawaiians even saw them alive and none of them had cameras; there are hardly even any specimens. Do you honestly expect there to be any photographs? KarlM (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • All I know is that photography existed before they became extinct. Do I expect a photograph to appear? Most likely not, but stranger things have happened. What's the harm in leaving the request up?...Pvmoutside (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hawaiian Honeycreepers[edit]

It appears that moving the Hawaiian honeycreepers will happen sooner than you think. The AOU has changed the subfamily to Carduelinae in the latest release this past July:

"The largest of the wholesale lumps is the dissolution of the subfamily Drepanidinae; the Hawaiian honeycreepers now occupy a position in the subfamily Carduelinae immediately after the Eurasian Bullfinch and before the “purple” finches — and those last, by the way, are now placed in the sequence House, Purple, and Cassin’s Finch. It can be confusing when you’re a bird towards the end of the Check-list.".......Pvmoutside (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rosewood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • s 'rosewood mafia'|publisher = [[BBC]]|date=20 February 2014|accessdate = 21 February 2014}}</ref>.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii edit-a-thon![edit]

Hello. I'm interested in attempting to put together an edit-a-thon for Hawaiian cultural topics something during the Makahiki festival perhaps around the month of November. The hope is that our lackluster coverage of Hawaiian mythology could be improved with help from the Bishop Museum, Hawaii Pacific University, and the Honolulu public library. I am in the process of making initial contacts with these organizations as well as Wikimedia DC's GLAM project. If this sounds like something you might be interested in participating in, or perhaps helping to coordinate, could you please add your name to 2014 Makahiki Edit-a-thon?--v/r - TP 07:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)