User talk:Look2See1

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

Today is Thursday, September 18, 2014; it is now 03:54 (UTC/GMT )

  • Please assume mutual good faith when here
Santa monica mountains canyon.jpg

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the edit on the recent merge, will help
--George2001hi (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Contributions[edit]

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the layout of Tahrir Square. Looking at your contributions, it looks like you're doing a great job of editing articles about Egypt at a time when many of us want to learn more. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese archipelago[edit]

Hello. I appreciate some of your edits to Ryūkyūan articles and categories, however I've removed Category:Japanese archipelago from them. These correctly belong in Category:Archipelagoes of Japan because they are controlled by the state of Japan. Geographically, the Ryūkyū Islands are not a part of the Japanese archipelago; same as Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands. While the Philippines, Indonesia, and even the Aleutian Islands were once "archipelagoes of Japan", they were never a part of the Japanese archipelago. Also, please read History of the Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Kingdom for a background on the archipelago before it politically became part of Japan. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Thank you Sturmgewehr, for pointing out my misunderstandings about the Ryūkyū Islands, and their not being geographically part of the Category:Japanese archipelago.—Look2See1 t a l k → 08:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples hierarchies!!![edit]

I've just fixed, or tried to, your addition of Category:History of indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest, which you added to PARENT categories, as if were not a subcat of them; it's taken me all evening to untangle them...I shudder to think what else you've done in the rest of the North American indigenous category hierarchy. Here's an idea, instead of playing games with the category hierarchy, which has stood for years quite organized, why don't you actually improve the articles instead? Lord knows that's what I would have spent the last four hours doing if not cleaning up the mess left by your activities. Seriously. This isn't anti-AGF, it's asking you to stop as you clearly don't know what you're doing. You also made categories intended for individuals parents of the ethnic group categories, which is not just getting things backwards, it's completely tieing certain subcat relationships into knots.Skookum1 (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Skookum, please back off. There was no play. I carefully read the articles, and cleaned up categories to be consistent per their information. You appear to know much about the subject, why haven't you already, or don't you now, improve and clarify the articles for all readers' benefits? The distinctions are not clear as written even if it "has stood for years quite organized" in your esoteric mind. Some of "your" articles and categories contradict one another! Your system does not make sense sometimes, and that's where I carefully edited to fix it. If you are one of the expert editors on this, fix the contradictions finally. Perhaps begin with Category:History of indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest, it has been confusing to me for years, and the articles under it have yet to improve. "You clearly don't know what you're doing" in making comprehension accessible to the general reader—so far. I have faith in you. The topics are very important and deserve your best.—Look2See1 t a l k → 07:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

Operation Shingle[edit]

I've asked repeatedly for an explanation. You seem to want to edit-war. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained in edit notes, with "commons continuity" thoughts. However you have not explained your repeated reverting edits to my initial edit yet, and so hope you do not aim to edit-war by bullying along, please don't. Instead of trying to explain your issues, and understand mine.
In the redirect I have Categories for the Jan. day/week of Operation Shingle's landing linked, not just the whole Jan-May Battle of Anzio operation, for those navigating from wikimedia that only uses Cat:Operation Shingle for all 5 months of battle. The wikipedia articles & categories do not align with the Commons categories, and instead of needless renaming hassles, having a simple wikipedia Redirect fill in the missing terms is efficient. Thank you—Look2See1 t a l k → 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Why does it matter if Commons categories match en-wp categories? Do you have a guideline to point to in this regard? I don't see the utility in what you're describing. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

Flora categories[edit]

Hi, Look2See1. Please note that the categories on plant distributions should follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. See WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD for more info. I have gone about restructuring the hierarchy for most continents but have yet to nominate several categories for upmerging -- those that are not used by the WGSRPD. It's important we follow this hierarchy as there are editors who would like to see all of these categories deleted and constantly nominate fauna categories (mostly in Europe) for deletion. At least the flora categories have a published hierarchy used by other websites like GRIN. Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Rkitko, the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions Categories is excellent for some uses of course, however it's hierarchy is illogical and appears capricious for the United States, by using political geographic boundaries for "subcategories" while ignoring the political geographic boundaries of "parentcats". It is bizarre that Cat:Flora of the Eastern U.S. can go under Cat:Flora of the U.S., but neither Cat:Flora of the Northastern U.S. or Cat:Flora of the Southeastern U.S. can -- either under Cat:Flora U.S. or Cat:Flora Eastern U.S.?? Having to go to Cat:Flora of North America for some of U.S. "subcategories", but not all "subcategories" is irregular -- and obtuse for use as a botanist. The World Geographical Scheme situation is also hopeless for average (American) users, and its esoteric irrationality smothers curiosity and initiative with rigid dogma and logical access success denied. Eg: My finally finding Cat:Flora of the Calif Desert, Not in Cat:Flora of Calif, Not in Cat:Flora of Southwest U.S., Not in Cat:Flora of Western U.S., Not in Cat:Flora of U.S. —— but way out the parent cat highway in Cat:Flora of North America illustrates how ridiculous the "rigid dogma and logical access" has become. Cat:Calif Desert is with Cat:Greenland and Cat:The Caribbean, instead of any cat within ~300 miles of its geographic location. That is why I have been reverting them today, the WGSRPD is failing in actual real life use for large countries, complex floristic divisions, and/or world renowned bio-hotspots.
The World Geographical Scheme ignores Floristic Provinces, lumping all California together as a political unit defined in 1850, not the actual phytogeographic reality independent of American expansionism. 70% of the state is in the California Floristic Province, a world biodiversity hotspot. A bit of the northeast/east is in the Great Basin Province, and all SoCal eastern desert rain shadow areas are in the Sonoran Province. Yet the World Geographical Scheme apparently only allowed the 1850 political unit -- what natural science developments in the 160 years since is that honoring ? or hindering ?
Learning from the recently destroyed subcategories, often with local endemics, I wish you had converted them to Cat:Natural history of ___. eg: Cat:Natural history of Calif chaparral, Cat:NH of Transverse Ranges, Cat:NH of Channel Islands of Calif., Cat:NH of San Francisco Bay Area, etc. and not upmerged them to a duplicative generality. So much research was destroyed in an instant, and was very disrespectful to myself and other editors. You inadvertently caused a high volume of OVERCATs, auto-replacing the regional habitat cats with Cat:Flora of Calif often next to preexisting Cat:Endemic flora of Calif -- has left me (& others) with much needless cleanup work. Please explain why you are causing that. I have created many Cat:Natural history of __ cats to replace the lost/upmerged flora ones, please use them. Also please ask me to create others before upmerging other flora ones.
Perhaps there are some other ways to have the World Geographical Scheme as the overarching structure, while developing (eg: California) something more usable than a daunting flat list of ~ 4,000+ plant species. I ask to discuss it. Thank you—Look2See1 t a l k → 07:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Look2See1 -- So sorry it has taken me a while to respond to you. Your response was difficult to follow and lengthy. I will try to respond point-by-point to the best of my ability.
1) You suggested that it is bizzare that the WGSRPD uses political boundaries for subcategories but does not have a parent category consisting solely of Category:Flora of the United States. If you have issues with the WGSRPD, take it up with them. As far as I can tell, the scheme makes sense. Category:Flora of North America contains the following ten regional categories: subarctic America, western Canada, eastern Canada, northwestern US, north-central US, northeastern US, southwestern US, south-central US, southeastern US, and Mexico. Both Canada and the US do not have their own national category because the national political boundaries do not fit floral affinities. The US contains Hawaii and Alaska, but these are not in one of the six regional categories that make up the contiguous US ("lower 48 states"). The same goes for Canada -- while Category:Flora of Eastern Canada and Category:Flora of Western Canada make up most of Canada's land area, there are a few bits in Category:Flora of Subarctic America that is shared with Alaska and Greenland. Therefore, there is no need for national categories for the US and Canada as they do not have boundaries that exist wholly within a few regional subcategories. I would also note that Category:Flora of the Eastern United States is on my list for disassembling into the WGSRPD regional categories (northeast and southeast) as "Eastern US" is not used in the WGSRPD. Both "Eastern US" and "US" categories will be nominated for deletion eventually.
2) Please note that Category:Flora of the California desert regions is not a WGSRPD category and shouldn't be in the hierarchy at all. It was mistakenly left in the "North America" flora category, so I understand your confusion. The category hierarchy is still under transition to the WGSRPD, so you'll forgive the occasional one left behind.
3) Yes, the WGSRPD tries to acknowledge that political boundaries are important. We speak about, describe, write about, and make policy decision for rare taxa based on their distributions within political boundaries. For example, you don't hear the California regulatory agencies describe the fact that an endangered species is extremely rare in California but abundant in adjacent states within the same floristic province; instead, they restrict their analyses to their own state. The WGSRPD took this into account while emphasizing political boundaries and de-emphasizing the lesser-known floristic kingdom system. Remember that Wikipedia is meant to serve its readers and not specialists. We can, do, and should have articles on floristic provinces, but the structure of the category hierarchy should follow the WGSRPD so that navigation and browsing is familiar to our readers. I would also note that the floristic kingdom system is parallel to the WGSRPD and we should use only one; using both systems on articles would lead to far too much overlapping categories and overcategorization.
4) On the "natural history" categories you created, is this meant to only include flora? Or both flora and fauna? Or flora, fauna, and geological features? The scope isn't clear to me and inclusion of plants within these categories seems to constitute overcategorization. Categories are not meant to serve as lists of taxa. For that, you should create articles, e.g. List of plants of the San Francisco Bay Area. Re-read WP:CAT for clarity on that matter. In a short time here, I will nominate all of the natural history categories to be listified -- they serve no purpose as categories.
5) It wouldn't be a terrible idea to use the WGSRPD as the main structure and then include small subcategories where appropriate, but as I've noted there are editors nominating all small European country categories for upmerging to "Insects of Europe" -- they really are on a crusade to eliminate what they see as "category clutter", noting that some organisms would otherwise be included on 50+ country categories in Europe. I tried to explain to the best of my ability why this was a bad idea here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 2#Category:Fish of Liechtenstein. See a current, open debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 29#Category:Birds of Suriname and feel free to leave a comment there. It's probably only a matter of time before those editors start nominating flora categories. In past discussions, they would probably like to see the whole of Europe upmerged, the whole of the US upmerged, etc.
6) An addendum -- you'll likely notice that today I reverted a bunch of your edits to orchid genera articles. There's good reason for this, so I thought I should explain here. It has been our long-standing practice to only include distribution categories, e.g. Category:Orchids of Belize, on species articles -- or if subspecies articles exist, for them. Not every species in a genus is native to every country of every other species in that genus, so it makes little sense to include the genus article in a country category when not endemic or monotypic.
Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Galveston Island State Park may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • park protects {{convert|2013.1|acre|ha|sing=on}} of [[dune]]s, [[estuary|estuaries]] in wetland]]s and brackish ponds, and beaches. It was established in 1975. It is adjacent to the city of [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Deir el-Muḥarraq[edit]

I added some photographs of the Deir el-Muḥarraq at Commons. --RolandUnger (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mediterranean Acacia-Argania dry woodlands 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:
  • [[Category:Flora of Western Sahara|*Mediterranean Acacia]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kohala, Hawaii may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • Sites State Monument]] includes ''Mo{{okina}}okini Heiau'', a National Historic Landmark]]. King [[Kamehameha I]], the first King of the unified Hawai{{okina}}ian Islands, was born in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hanakaoe Burial Platform may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • {{-}]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bidens torta may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"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:
  • ether, okanin 3,4,3′-trimethyl ether 4′-glucoside, okanin 4-methyl ether 4′-glucoside and [[okanin 4-methyl ether 4′-glucoside monoacetate.
  • [[Okanin 3,4-dimethyl ether 4′-glucoside can also be isolated.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lake Aloha may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • {{File:Lake Aloha rappensuncle.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Lake Aloha in Desolation Valley, the [[Desolation
  • 300px|Lake Aloha in Desolation Valley, the [[Desolation Wilderness|Desolation Wilderness Area]].]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Fossils[edit]

I have some what I think to believe are bison fossils. I would like to get In touch with some one about them. The land I live on, I find all kinds I different types of fossils. I have a couple pics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.239.247 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]