User talk:86.83.56.115

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Chowder. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (86.83.56.115) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 06:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cayenne pepper, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A wiki is a user-generated site and is thus not a reliable source. And what the spice bottles in your cupboard happen to contain is not a reliable source either. Please also read WP:OR. Meters (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Red kite[edit]

FYI, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_kite#%22Endemic%22_or_%22native%22?

September 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dan Koehl. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Butia yatay— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hi, how is it not constructive? I thought reffing this old statement might be useful & specifying that the nuts are eaten as opposed to the fruits is clarifying. Sorry forgot to add edit summary. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note to self. Sorted. Caused by bot triggered by word 'nuts'. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Butia capitata into Draft:Butia odorata. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I had no idea. But this is the first time I've done it; it is a somewhat exceptional situation. I'll read through the process more carefully should the need ever arise again. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Butia odorata has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Butia odorata, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nessie (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Butia campicola has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Butia campicola, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nessie (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Butia stolonifera has a new comment[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Butia stolonifera. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Butia stolonifera has a new comment[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Butia stolonifera. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Howdy[edit]

Hey there! Seems like you're getting some work done in Butia, and it's appreciated. Thank you. However, I wonder if you're staying. Why not make an account and stay a spell? I think you're a little past the lurking stage, if you're already debating taxonomy. 🙂 No pressure, but with an account you can even skip the AfC process and create articles faster. Think it over. Cheers! --Nessie (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! 86.83.56.115, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
Hiya, Nessie! Well, it's appreciated it's appreciated -Butia are interesting! And thanks for editing/vetting my writings. Ehh... making an account... yeah I'll think about it, I like lurking. The AfC process is sort of slowing me down, but it is 'een stok achter de deur' to make sure the quality is reasonable. Regarding angiosperm taxonomy, excuses, that is something I where happen know something -I know it's not exactly common knowledge. So regarding Subtribus: Attaleinae; two papers came out recently which I haven't read yet, however, one of the conclusions was that Butia is close to Jubaea, not Syagrus, which makes me doubt the validity of the morphological circumcision of Attaleinae (guessing Bailey?). Hence I was on the fence and didn't want to use the rank until I knew more. Not really a fan of overly detailed cladistics anyway; often weakly supported and in this case it serves no diagnostic purpose. If people want it in there, fine, but I'm guessing one day someone will take it out again. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know much about the taxonomy of palms, I generally just crib from NCBI or some other database for the taxonomy templates. But if you have something better as a source, you can be bold and update Template:Taxonomy/Butia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). If you want to be cautious, you can ask on Talk:Butia and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants if they have any better sources, but generally people only but heads on the higher levels of taxonomy. For the lower levels, if you got a good source that's usually good enough.--Nessie (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for checking my stuff. NCBI... I had to look that up! Never use it. Sure, I'll change the higher levels of taxonomy if necessary, but I want to read the relevant papers first. But now I look at these Butia taxoboxes, I do notice one thing wrong on many pages: Cocoea should be Cocoseae. Regarding some of those citation-needed thingies, I'll look into that; but two are already in the WCSP ref given (in the 'Accepted by' part). I'll cite Govaerts' 1996 work to original source though, he also has a Brazilian distrib I think, and it's lying here somewhere... I also have that other 1995 book by Henderson (too out of date!). Regarding the uncited 'error' part... well, yeah, it's inference from the works cited earlier... If it was only found once in Uruguay and never seen again, it cannot be native to Brazil, logically. I thought I read some wikipedia thing about citing the same fact only once/not citing the obvious. In any case, I'll try to figure out why all the databases got it wrong (I have two or three hopefully testable theories), or I can word it differently so people can make their own inferences. Give me a tad. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Nice work. I added the {{Full citation needed}} to the article because most readers will have no idea what is meant by 'Henderson et al. 1995' nor any way to look that up. It's one of the big differences between Wikipedia and pure academic writing.
Also, it looks like Cocoeae and Cocoseae both point to the same place. I say go ahead and add the s where it needs to be. I just checked the taxonomy template for the automated taxobox system and it has the S. --Nessie (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it must be Cocoseae following rules of Latin grammar, as it is derived from the word cocos. Maybe Cocoeae is an old syn. from someone with a typographical error or bad grammar, or it is possibly something altogether different that is being confused here. I will change it everywhere. And add the last cite for Henderson & co.. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, checked this, Uhl & Dransfield, Glassman and Henderson cited Moore [1973] in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s for the name Cocoeae. It is a misspelling of Cocoseae which had been authored already by Martius in 1837. This became wider knowledge in 2001, Uhl & Dransfield started using Cocoseae by 2005. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Butia stolonifera has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Butia stolonifera, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nessie (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Butia microspadix has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Butia microspadix, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Butia archeri has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Butia archeri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Butia arenicola has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Butia arenicola, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)