User talk:Raasgat

Welcome!

Hello, Raasgat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

I did notice you reverted my edits to Carl Axel Magnus Lindman‎. However, all I did was trying to implement the standards as described in the Manual of Style. So, please use this style guide when producing articles for Wikipedia. Thank you for contributing and happy editing. / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

Well no, I couldn't find any guidelines concerning image captions in there either. How to use images is described in Wikipedia:Captions, Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, and Wikipedia:Image use policy. Beyond copyright issues, however, these guidelines are not carved in stone. I'm myself have sidestepped them in several articles (even extensively in articles such as Vädersolstavlan) so I left the captions in Lindman as you wanted them though I believe the rule of thumb is the KISS principle (as always).

Again, thank you for contributing and please don't allow me to distract you any further

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Trango Towers edit

Hi. Please provide a source for your recent edit to Trango Towers otherwise it may be removed. RedWolf 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Namibie Quivertree Forest 02.JPG

As far as I can see, I mistakenly removed that image while cleaning up an extensive fair use problem in this and other articles. Thank you for catching my error! -- But|seriously|folks  07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Plant contributions

Hi there! I see your contributions often on the plants new article list and was wondering if you could do a couple of things to help out those of us who clean up, categorize, etc. within the WP:PLANTS project:

1. Each plant article should have a taxobox. See WP:TX for instructions on how to use the taxobox.
2. The size of articles you're creating are considered stubs and should be tagged as such. You can use the templates described at Category:Plant stubs.
3. On the talk page, could you tag the articles with {{WikiProject Plants}}? You can assess it if you want or leave it blank.

Let me know if you have any questions or any problems with this. I appreciate it! Thanks, -Rkitko ^(talk) 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello there

Thanks for your note. Items 2 and 3 are no problem and I will do. Taxoboxes I find aesthetically messy and have tried to avoid them where possible. I find their position at the head of the article disruptive and have always felt that if forced into the article, they should be at the end, near the 'Category' section. My feeling about taxoboxes is that the information they convey can be done just as readily in the body of the article. The ghastly colours that are used are distinctly objectionable as is the boxy look. Otherwise, glad to hear from you! Raasgat 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and willingness to help us stub-sort and add the WikiProject Plants banner to the article talk pages that you create. That's great! It really does help us keep track of the now 21,000+ articles in the scope of the project. On taxoboxes: I have some misgivings about them, too. Specifically, I wish there was a parameter that could describe which circumscription the article was using (Cronquist, APGII, etc.), but otherwise I find them to be very useful and not a problem aesthetically. I find it especially useful when I'm creating the type of stubs to fill in a genus or family such as Levenhookia preissii. I might be able to place the synonym and binomial authority information in the text but in my opinion it clutters up the flow of the text and reduces its readability. Many of our readers may not know what the name after a binomial means, even if linked to the authority. The taxobox allows the information to still be present while the body of text is still readable by our general readership. For example, not m. It has been consensus to have them on all pages that describe taxa for quite a while. You don't have to add them, but we'd appreciate it if you did. Otherwise I'll continue to add the "needs-taxobox=yes" parameter in the assessment and someone from our project will be along to add one to the page. If you want to start a discussion on how you think they could be improved, you can do that at Template talk:Taxobox. Well, anyway, thanks for your reply and input. As always, let me know if I can clear anything up or help out in any way! Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, are these taxoboxes obligatory or optional? Cheers Raasgat 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said above, there has been consensus to add taxoboxes to each and every article about a taxon. Even the plant articles that have become featured articles have taxoboxes. Clearly the community has placed value in the taxobox. Obligatory or optional? Well, you aren't required to put them on the taxa articles you create. Someone else will come along and do so, though. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there we are. If there is a consensus that taxoboxes improve articles, then I am out of step and must be the only one to feel that they detract, are aesthetically repulsive and are ignored by the average user. I certainly don't want to get into an edit war by acting on my convictions. Have fun Raasgat 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It turns out they are useful for quickly finding the taxonomic information about a species, what the taxoboxes were originally intended for. They're also used as a navigation tool for getting information automatically, and, when moving between Wikipedias in obscure languages you barely pretend to speak, they are a godsend. Many other plant editors also feel they "detract, are aesthtecially repulsive and are ignored by the average user," so I was simply ignoring your South African geophyte articles that don't have taxoboxes--as your South African bulb articles are lovely, aesthetically pleasing and wonderful to have on Wikipedia for the average user. Still, they will eventually be abominated. KP Botany 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You were right - the abominations appeared sooner than one would have expected. Is all of Wikipedia permeated by Pharisees? Where is the freedom one heard so much about and most puzzling: how does improvement or change ever come about? Raasgat 13:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Plants

Hello, Raasgat and thank you for your contributions on plant- or botany-related articles. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Plants, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of plant-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Rkitko (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Botanical author template Margaret Levyns

Hi Rkitko, Is there a version of the author citation template which isn't bounded by 2 straight lines? My feeling is that besides the clumsy wording used, the author abbreviation isn't so important that it merits special treatment and could just as easily be included in the body of the text. Just a thought..... Raasgat 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! It's pretty standard practice to use the author citation template. It also automatically adds the page to a category (Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). I personally don't mind the structure and appreciate the fact that it is set apart from the body of the text. You can propose changes to the template at Template talk:Botanist if you'd like - wording, structure, etc. See what other people think. If you do leave a message there and no one replies (few people will have that on their watchlist), you could bring the issue up with WikiProject Plants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and see what the project editors think. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding headings

"Please do not change the format of the headings - nothing in the MoS obliges one to use the horizontal divisions."

Yes, it does: WP:HEAD. The headings with two equal signs are crucial to the article when it is given many more headings. Also, review WP:OWN. The heading style is widely established in Wikipedia and override your style preferences on the articles you create. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so I'd ask that you please change them back. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The convention will apply if there are different levels of headings - in this case they are all the same level. I think I know enough about ownership not to be guilty of it, but that doesn't mean that I will stand idly by while someone makes changes that do NOT improve the article; such as placing distribution maps in the taxobox - can you cite an MoS guideline for that? Also I note that you redirected Wood Screw Pump stating that it was not a proper noun - well, it is. I see that you have been dogging my footsteps and editing everything I do - I'm sure there must be more useful things for you to do.... Raasgat 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Different levels of headings or not, WP:HEAD seems to clearly prefer ==Heading== as the initial heading. In your opinion, the changes I made do not improve the article. That may very well be, but both the range maps and the headings are established standards. (There isn't an MoS for every detail, but there are clear precedents. Range maps are often placed near a section on their distribution if the page is large enough. If not, they're usually placed in the taxobox.) Maintaining styles that you prefer in articles you create and edit against established standards may be correctly assumed to be a violation of WP:OWN.

I do apologize for moving Wood Screw Pump. Upon seeing it was named after A. Baldwin Wood, I assumed that it was one type of many screw pumps. I should have checked the ref's, you're right. Please accept my apology for that error.

There's no need to assume I'm watching your edits. I keep the bot-generated new plant article list on my watchlist. All of your species articles have turned up there. I make it a habit to review an editor's other contributions for similar issues (like WP:HEAD). That's a large part of what I do and it is indeed useful. My goal is to bring new articles up to standards. I apologize if it seemed like I was watching your movements here; that's not my goal here.

I value your contributions, especially on the genus of plants you've been filling in. They're fantastic starts for these articles that may not have otherwise been written for quite some time. I appreciate your endeavor and encourage you to continue. It seems like you have the source information available to finish off the genus, correct? I myself just completed creating stubs for all Levenhookia species (still working on the rest of the Stylidiaceae).

I meant to ask you. You don't have very many contributions here on en.wikipedia - do you edit in another language? I admire anyone that can. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia clearly states repeatedly, most of the manual of style is guidelines. I question that Wikipedia has as policy headings that involve dividing lines across the article - I have seen very many articles dispensing with the lines, and when necessary, depending on the size of font to establish different levels of heading. To see how out of step the lines are, please check articles written with an eye to layout by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6970173.stm They also use different-sized fonts to differentiate between various heading levels where necessary. As for my paranoia about being stalked, you will notice that 24 out of 27 edits you carried out on 3 September were on articles that I was working on. To me that is unacceptable, and clearly constitutes being targeted. Your "valuing my contributions" comes across as being extremely patronising - perhaps choosing another word in your future exchanges with other editors, might lead to more amicable relationships. I'm sorry if this message seems confrontational - it is not intended. I would far rather that we co-operated, because it would leave time to be constructive in creating other articles and not to expend one's time and energy on futilities. Cheers, Raasgat 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would remind you that civiity is policy. You are ignoring the consideration shown by a number of editors, your apology above is a non-apology. Your accusations are unwarranted, and unacceptable. Stalking is a serious allegation, it is not what you described above. You have the opportunity to edit to your preference, but that is given to us all. If you diverge from guidelines, expect to be challenged. Claiming a blanket right to do as you please is willful misinterpretation, stick to discussion on improvement. Cygnis insignis 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the above do I claim a "blanket right to do as I please" - that is wilful misinterpretation on your part. As for an apology - none was intended, as I have done nothing which calls for an apology or which calls for veiled threats about lack of civility. If Rkitko feels that I have impugned his honour, let him take it up in the appropriate forum. I don't think it's up to you to act as his protector - he seems perfectly capable of doing so by himself. Have a good day! Raasgat 12:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a designer, but when was the last time you saw an encyclopedia with good design? (Thought a little humor might be good - ignore it if you feel it's misplaced.) Regardless, layout/style that you're talking about isn't an individual's choice on Wikipedia. The style guidelines may not be policy, but they do represent consensus.

As for the allegation of targeting your edits, you should have seen the day I went cleaning up after one editor who was adding copyrighted material from PROTAbase. You should have seen my edits that day! Nearly all of them were right after this editor. Judging by your criteria, was I also stalking this editor? Forgive me if it appeared that way, but it was not my intention to stalk you.

I often use the phrase "value your contributions" with what appears to be a newbie editor making botanical contributions. As I already stated, I watch the new-plant list, tag the new articles with the WP:PLANTS banner, and attempt to encourage those new editors I encounter to continue their good work, sometimes with suggestions. Saying I value your contributions is not meant to sound patronizing and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.

Perhaps this discussion is misdirected. You clearly disagree with some of the style guidelines on Wikipedia. Since this is a wiki, we can find the appropriate locations and involve the community in a larger discussion of the things you would change. Also, I believe User:Cygnis insignis has offered to help change the formatting (I assume through a user's monobook script?). I'd urge you to follow those avenues instead of disregarding consensus. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deep breath

Just keep telling yourself, "more is better, more is better, more is better." I'm working right now on trying to convince a guy to stop adding an agriculture and horticulure banner, each over 12" long, to every plant page--but maybe if the taxoboxes expand to fill all the space.... KP Botany 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Headings =

Hi Raasgat. I undid your edit at Haemanthus. There are other ways of changing the formatting, I can help with that if you need it. Your use of headings may complicate the editing, and rendering, of the article. –Cygnis insignis 01:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)