User talk:Michaplot

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

Lipid[edit]

I'm not clear why you deleted a whole section of the above article [1]. Please discuss large scale removal on the articles talk page and get WP:CONSENSUS before doing so. Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydatellaceae[edit]

Greetings! While I'd normally agree with you that speaking of a family requires usage of a plural verb, e.g. "The Hydatellaceae are now placed in the Nymphaeales," that collective sense as in "All of the members of this taxon" is usually avoided when introducing the taxon. My reading of the first sentence is that we're introducing the name and taxon, not describing the members of the Hydatellaceae. Perhaps it can be rewritten, but it's quite common to first present the taxon, then discuss its members. Unless there's something I'm missing (and I'm willing to admit as much!), this is pretty standard in the literature, too. Take a look at the intro sentence of every family article on Wikipedia, e.g. Asteraceae and Hydrangeaceae. Perhaps we've all gotten it wrong, but I do think the singular usage, as in "the taxon is," is correct. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the comments. In the botanical literature, supergeneric taxa are generally treated as plural since they are plural constructions in Latin. (You could find examples that contradict this, but they are wrong.) Check out the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (http://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/apweb/) where families and orders are considered plural words. When someone says "papaveraceae", the translation would "the poppies" or more exactly, "members of the poppy group".
It is true that many of the plant families (orders, etc.) on WP are presented as singular. This is a mention of the word, not a use, which is discouraged on WP. (See Use-mention distinction.) It is the difference between saying, "plum is a fruit..." and "plum is a four letter word, derived from..." While we might briefly refer to the latter mention of the word plum, this is the province of dictionaries not encyclopedias.
It is true that, e.g. "The rose family is..." and "the taxon is...". I would argue the key point here is that on WP we are primarily writing an article about are a lineage of plants that bear the name Rosaceae. We are not writing about the taxon Rosaceae, which is a technical name with an authority, a history of use, a variety of circumscriptions, etc. I suppose someone could make a case for this focus on WP. I would be interested to hear if you think that is what WP should do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaplot (talkcontribs)
I agree with everything you say above. Our difference seems to be explained by your last statements. I think Wikipedia should explain both the "lineage of plants that bear the name Rosaceae" and the taxon, which has a history of use, etc. Certainly many others agree with this, since many supergeneric articles contain well-sourced information on different circumscriptions. In fact, many of these articles are almost entirely about circumscription, the authority, first usage, etc. And I think that almost always the first sentence is introducing the taxon.
There had been a discussion related to this subject at WT:PLANTS a while ago, but I didn't follow it closely. I'll see if I can dig up the link. If it doesn't address this issue, I'd love to hear what the other botany editors think. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I would love to see the previous discussion on this issue, if you can find it. I would strongly advocate WP articles focusing on the organisms rather than the arbitrary taxa. By focusing I mean that I think the plants should come first and the taxonomy (which, as a botanist, I do personally find very interesting) come later in the article. And I do think this gets into the Use-mention issue. To my mind, it does not serve the general public who are mostly non-botanists, to begin each article by locating the taxon in a taxonomic scheme. I would guess most people come to WP to learn about the plants and not how people have classified them. But if that is the consensus and I cannot convince anyone else, I will go with it.Michaplot (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of nonviolent communication[edit]

You have just reverted some material I removed from the criticism section of the article on Nonviolent Communication. The material I removed was a mixture of statements critical of NVC that were, in my opinion, improperly supported by reliable sources. I expressed my concerns on the article talk page. You evidently have a different perspective, but I don't yet understand it. I am unhappy with our seeming lack of progress in communicating. I value collaboration and would like to try to find a better way to communicate. Would you be willing to work on that? Sunray (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly would. The whole idea of a criticism section is probably fraught and I am thinking that maybe a Response section might be a better idea, which could probably easily survey most of the secondary source literature on NVC. I have expressed a number of ideas related to the critiques we have found over the years and in our recent discussion, sometimes at great length, but if you don't understand my position, I would be happy to go into more detail. As for the NPOV, I agreed that the original section was too long, considering the paucity of sources, and we have substantially cut it down. The whole subject is curious in that it has attracted so little discussion in the literature, so the question of sources and weight becomes a unique situation. In any case, I interpret sources as both published material and the people who produce the material. Since there are few facts related to NVC (beyond those related to how it works and was developed), the critiques are all opinion, as are the encomiums and the putative benefits or value. It is clear that NVC is supportable based on a wealth of anecdotal evidence, but the conspicuous absence of secondary sources is troubling to me.Michaplot (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that more detail would help. It seems that we got off to a weak start. I find what you have just said here reasonable. And I like what you have done with the section. Perhaps you are right that the name of the section should be "Responses." Though I mean it when I say it would be great to have a viable criticism section if we could find some decent sources.
You describe yourself, in part, as a "lexically-leaning, concinnity-seeking, progressive." I happen to share those traits. I am a sociologist with specialization in conflict resolution. I have a fair knowledge of NVC. Which is why I find some of the "critiques" annoying. Flack's critique is interesting, but just not up to social science standards for criticism. My real problem is that he over-generalizes on little information. For example, he makes a big deal out of the fact that Rosenberg had to think, therefore the model is cognitive. That completely misses the point that Rosenberg isn't telling anyone not to think, just that if you respond by intellectualizing, or rationalizing, when in conflict, it will not help. This is well-supported in the literature on conflict resolution. Flack goes on about "universal needs" completely missing the point that one of the most telling critiques of NVC is its formulaic nature--the very reason why people like Sarles and Flack abandon it without really trying.
I don't mean to run on (it is late and I'm over-tired) but I am wondering whether a plant scientist with an inquiring mind and a jaded social scientist might make a decent team. Sunray (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
We might just! I agree that Flack's critique is somewhat idiosyncratic and may lack some sophistication (I believe he is a computer person and not an expert in the field, but clearly a thoughtful and well-read person.) My background is that, though I am a plant scientist, I also have an MS (and most of a doctorate) in education and took quite a few graduate education courses (at UC Davis, while doing my plant stuff) in everything from ethnography and ethnopoetics to the philosophical and the sociological aspects of education. As director of an Environmental Technology program at Vermont State Colleges, I arranged for a friend of a friend who was working on mediation at MIT come and give a workshop for the students. More relevant to this topic, I attended a workshop while living in communal house in college conducted by Rosenberg. I was quite impressed. Over the years I have had regular recrudescences of NVC in my life, and one of my friends (and my wife's closest friends) is an NVC trainer (certified) and very active in the Bay Area NVC. I have even been to NVC therapy with my wife. What initially annoyed me about this article is that I have had many discussion with friends, especially those involved in NVC, about the various aspects of NVC and the perception is that there are lots things to consider and discuss and to criticize and lots of issues, some more valid than others. Yet when I went to find any of these in the literature, I found nearly none. So while the people I know in NVC are fully willing to discuss and debate the possible flaws or weaknesses in the theory and the practice, I have run across other people who are cultishly (I use the term advisedly) devoted to NVC and are unwilling to entertain that there might be any valid criticism of it. For who would be against "nonviolent communication"?! And in my circle of people here in Davis, I have experienced NVC used in a coercive, even violent way--which is not to say that NVC inherently promotes manipulative or coercive behavior, but it is something I discussed very seriously with my NVC friends and they are well aware that it has that potential (as Sarles and some others have noted--just not in the academic literature). In any case, as I have a scientific bent, I am interested in finding out what research says about NVC. Apparently, not much, one way of the other. I created the criticisms section to compile any critiques of NVC, and as you can see, came up with not much. Still the discussions I have had with NVC people suggests that they are aware of some very real issues and critiques, but apparently no one has published them. I also created some of the other sections in the article to help flesh out the history, development and applications of NVC and I see people have filled them in to some extent. I am interested in the article being encyclopedic, which is to say, I would like it to be NPOV, and to acknowledge that this technique of NVC has copious anecdotal support and perhaps some theoretical support, but really not much formal research support. This may or may not trouble people, but a fair article should inform and not attempt to persuade. I think we have to be careful about presenting the claims of NVC as fact, rather than as claims. Even if NVC were accepted as effective, it may or may not work for the reasons NVC claims it does. It is a weird and intriguing situation and I have been unable to think of an analogous practice or theory that has so little discussion in the academic literature, but so much enthusiasm and devotion among a significant group of people. What a great challenge!Michaplot (talk)
You raise some interesting points about NVC. On the "concerns" side of the ledger, you strike a chord with your comment about having experienced NVC used in a "coercive, even violent way." I haven't experienced this, but I do see the potential. It is also very hard to teach to those without critical thinking skills. I recall one fellow in conflict saying "I felt manipulated." It was very difficult to explain that this statement is actually a judgement that casts blame on the other person. That said, I've seen it work incredibly well when used by an experienced person. I'm not very good at it in real life, but have experimented with it online with some success. I don't know whether you noticed, but if you look at my first paragraph above, you will see that I followed the observations-feeling-need-request format. It seemed to change the tenor of our interaction. The amazing thing was that I could feel the shift in my attitude as I wrote it. Interesting, no? I've seen a study about its effectiveness in online dispute resolution.
Re-reading your comments, I'm impressed with your grasp of the issues with NVC. You have a healthy skepticism, which seems appropriate. I'm very glad that you have shared some of your history. I figured you must have some background in the social sciences, but couldn't put my finger on it. Education with some ethnography... I see it now. My background is almost as mixed: undergraduate work in psychology and applied social science; graduate work in business administration, anthropology, sociology, then environmental ecology. But most of that was cobbled together while I worked for the Canadian federal government (for many years). Now I am interested in peace (in every sense of the word); trying to overcome those years of working in complex organizations—which is why I'm interested in things like NVC... and mindfulness. I look forward to working with you. Sunray (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem[edit]

I was saddened by your recent remarks on the article talk page for two reasons: 1) I had thought that we were getting somewhere (you and me) in our ability to communicate, and even, perhaps, in our preparedness to begin editing collaboratively. Your statement: "S/he has, in my opinion, been extremely defensive, tendentious and aggressive..." seemed to be a reversion to before the time we began to talk on your talk page (I am male, by the way). But your sentiment that I was "claiming we had reached consensus when in fact the defenders (mostly me) had simply given up, having felt bulldozed" tells me that we had not connected. 2) The descent of the discussion about the article into ad hominem is also most distressing to me. Would you be willing to confine remarks on the article talk page to discussion of the article, not other editors? I would be happy to discuss any concerns you have about me on my talk page. Of course, if you have a complaint about my behaviour, you can also take that to other WP forums dedicated to that purpose. BTW, I did not say that you were wikilawyering. I did say Jojalozzo "seemed to prefer wikilawyering" (which was admittedly ad hominem and unnecessary, whether it was true or not). For my part, I will try harder to listen. Sunray (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:PhodopusPhylo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:PhodopusPhylo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:PhodopusPhyloFig.jpg[edit]

Hello, Michaplot!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:PhodopusPhyloFig.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

PhodopusPhyloFig.jpg Advice[edit]

I like the clade chart you have made; however, might you be able to rotate the image clockwise and enlarge the text? Both things would be helpful for readablility. Cheers. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try to make a better version. I agree it is not the most readable, but it is what the computer program I use produces. I will see what I can do with it in a graphics software.Michaplot (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I really like your recent changes, particularly the addition of color. Thanks for helping improve the article. ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Phodopus[edit]

Hello Michael. Was my copy edit OK? I ask because you haven't been back since I did it. I certainly didn't mean to interrupt your work or to offend you in any way. The work you've done on the article so far is outstanding. --Stfg (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks great to me! I havent had much time lately to work on it, but I will do more eventually. I did notice your edits and they all look excellent. Thanks for your efforts on this page. I think we have something great here, and it will only get better as we work on it. I wish I had more time!!Michaplot (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That's great. I'm amazed what you have managed to do with the article. I'll keep watching. Best wishes, --Stfg (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Plant collaboration of the month[edit]

Hello: I noticed your interest in plant articles, so here's information about the plant collaboration of the month, if you're interested.

from: Northamerica1000(talk) 01:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MERLOT[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on MERLOT, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Στc. 01:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space[edit]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Michaplot/MERLOT has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MERLOT, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


Teahouse logo
Hello! Michaplot, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. Any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
MERLOT, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Icy // 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey by the way, nice job referencing it, you definitely took "Add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject" pretty seriously :) Icy // 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It is hard work, tracking down those refs. I am glad the article is up so other people with more time than me can improve this article!Michaplot (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Language to be used in describing out of date classifications[edit]

In revising Chlorogalum (which needed it), you've used language like "The Flora of North America retains Chlorogalum in Liliaceae." I don't think this is right. The FNA was published well before APG revised the families and orders of the flowering plants, so it didn't choose to "retain" the genus in Liliaceae, it simply reflects the view of its time. (The online version at least is slowly being brought up-to-date.) By the way, the existing statement re ITIS placing the genus in Liliaceae is now incorrect: see [2]. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (",)[edit]

GA on Hold[edit]

Please see Talk:Nonviolent Communication/GA1. Please address this issue soon and get back to me. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And you too (re: Gun Control)[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. I also thank you for the work you have done in making the Impact on Mortality section into an actual unbiased review. I made a few brief attempts at some corrections and clarifications in that section, but you have done a great job re-working the entire section. I don't know if you have seen the following yet, but I was thinking about including it in the Impact on Mortality section:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13497 U.S. Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health

I downloaded the preprint pdf. It appears to analyse the influence of firearms from an epidemiological standpoint in comparison with other higher-income countries. I think it also makes mention of the cost of firearm injuries and the drain on health care systems. This may require adding "morbidity" to the section heading, but these statistics, with regard to arguments about the influence of gun control, are probably as important as those dealing with firearm deaths. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.StopYourBull (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Plural or singular plant family names[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Plural or singular family names. Plantdrew (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Heywood[edit]

I'm writing here to avoid cluttering up the WP:Plants talk page. Very interesting to me to learn that Heywood is still in use. As an amateur but enthusiastic plantsperson/botanist, I've found it invaluable as a source of information, particularly on plant families which don't occur in the British Isles -- I've just returned from Malaysia, for example, and was using it to find out more about the family of a plant I'd photographed. I can't at all agree that "maybe the Heywood book is ... dumbed down"; it might seem that way to you, but not to me or, I suspect, your undergraduate students. Although it's very out of date, I've not found a replacement, although something of similar scope using the APG classification would be invaluable. Is there any such book? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean--my copy of Heywood is quite beat up, but I still drag it out frequently. I also consult Cronquist and Takhtajan, even though the taxonomy is out of date. I shouldn't have used the phrase dumbed down! What I meant was "simplified" for general readers (Heywood addresses this in the intro, where he says something, if I remember correctly, like the study of botany requires some daunting terminology, which should not completely be shied away from). I really think though, that he must have felt that the singular was appropriate, which at least one of my professors at UC Davis bemoaned, even while greatly appreciating the book. The standard text we use now to look up characters in higher taxa is the Judd et al. Plant Systematics text. It has nowhere near the coffee table book appeal of Heywood, but it does have lots of line drawing illustrations, and it is comprehensive. It also has nice introductory chapters on phylogenetic systematics topics. I think I am one edition out of date, but the edition I have came with a CD that has pictures of various plant groups. If you want a comprehensive, up-to-date but somewhat technical plant systematics book for those obscure (and familiar) families, Judd is it.Michaplot (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Education Program[edit]

WikipediaEducationProgramLogo.svg

Hi Michaplot, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the course instructor right to your account, as you have demonstrated a need for it through the Wikipedia Education Program. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and will just allow you to be able to access the course extension as well as create and edit course pages. If you are interested in accessing the course extension so that you might be able to create a course page right now, here is the link. For more information on the course instructor right, see this page. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 21:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Michaplot (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm MrBill3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Functional medicine seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)