User talk:Circeus

Archives:

2005
2006: January-February, March, April, May, June, July-October, October 2006-January 2007
2007: October 2006-January 2007, February-April, May-June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2008: January-March, April-May, June, July-December
2009: January-March,

"Barbare blanc" translation

Good evening,

Have you published your Poulpy, Barbare Blanc translation? --Dereckson (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerondendron Ugandens

Heya dude/dudette. I dont see why you deleted the article on this fictional plant explaining that its from the story a scanner darkly. Cyclotron (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on Plagiarism Dispatch

Thanks! A very important distinction to make. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Blacktip trevally

On 26 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blacktip trevally, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping

Thank you for helping with the move from Gobioides Broussonneti to Gobioides broussonneti. However I noticed you then moved it to violet goby. Please move it back, as wikiproject aquarium fishes has very specific rules stating that a fish article should use its scientific name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

meh. It appears I was wrong. I could swear i did see it in there but I could be mistaken. It would make more sense to use scientific names though due to the fact that dragon goby refers to both G. broussonneti and A. phaelena, Dragon Fish refers to both G. broussonneti and P. eques, and Violet goby refers to both G. broussonneti and O. visayanus. It seems using Latin names wold clear up this confusion. Alas, I know you are not the person to talk to about changing WP:AQF's policies.Drew R. Smith (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have personnaly heard all of these fish refered to by many different names. Part of the problem is petstores selling them under fake names to romanticise (sp?) them. Disambiguation would be good, however these are all out of the mainstream and I do not believe they have a page created yet. As I said before though, I shoud be taking this up with WP:AQF, which I am in the process of doing right now.Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, no offense but you sound like a robot or security guard or somthing. I never said petstore labels were reliable sources, and have made scenes in the pet stores for having fish labeled improperly. What I did say however, was that many fish have many names that are commonly recognised by the public due to petstores mislabeling. Drew R. Smith (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it (I knew I wasnt crazy)! On WP:AQF our aticle naming is deffered to WP:FISH where they say that the common name is the defaut article title IF there are not multiple common names for a species, or if multiple species use the same common name. I think Gobioides broussonneti fits both profiles and should be moved accordingly.Drew R. Smith (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my message seems kinda stuck up or "I told you so-ish".Drew R. Smith (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for False scad

On 27 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article False scad, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Brassy trevally

On 29 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brassy trevally, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bergh-Stoutenburgh House

I wrote the list entry based on the NRHP nom, which says it's the only nom, but later I came across the other source, which clarifies that there's another one. I will appropriately amend the list. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iridaceae

Ok!...and good editions in both families, now I am trying to complete the taxonomy of Amaryllidaceae. Regards! --EnCASF (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus: go ahead with all the corrections and explanations you consider important for the article. I'll agree with them since I am learning a lot...it's a completely new environment for me! (and my excuses for the orthographic or syntaxis errors, even though I am learning english since I was 5 years old -a lot of decades ago- it continues to be a headache for me :-). I am glad that you have the time and interest to correct the article. Cheers! --EnCASF (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your message in my page. It indicates me that there exist enough space in W:EN to continue editing on plant articles. On the other hand, it reflects that you are a good guy (an exhausted good guy :-). Finally, it would be a pleasure to work with you in order to improve this (and others) articles. So, at least for me, nothing has happened here.... All the best! --EnCASF (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK!, I corrected (hope!) the taxobox in Crocoideae. --EnCASF (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A minor stuff: don't you think that it would be better that the image in the taxobox, when it is possible, corresponds to the type genus?, A crocus flower in Crocideae, an Iris flower in Iridaceae? --EnCASF (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mong Kok acid attacks

On May 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mong Kok acid attacks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Blue runner

On May 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blue runner, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllidaceae

Hi Circeus!, have you any reason to change the cladogram in the article?. Thanks! --EnCASF (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch!!, it is my fault...part of the text were old...and I did not want to delete it immediately....and it continued surviving...The cladogram reflects the current knowledge of the phylogeny of the family...I will check the latest papers but I'm pretty sure that there are no polytomy. WOOWW, I am surprised about your job (and your knowledge!!). Thanks again and I will check and comment you about this issue.--EnCASF (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that,don't worry!--EnCASF (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Circeus. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

at the Pathophysiology of hypertension hook :-) MaenK.A._Talk 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iridaceae revision

Thank you Circeus for follow me to the spanish neighborhood!!, Almost every day I check W:EN in order to know if anyone decide to start the revision....but I did not check on the exact day (a new Murphy's law??). Thanks again!, --EnCASF (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]