User talk:EncycloPetey

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

Nov 2005 – Dec 2006
Jan 2007 – Dec 2007
Jan 2008 – Dec 2008
Jan 2009 – Dec 2009
Jan 2010 – Dec 2010
Jan 2011 – Jun 2011
Jul 2011 – Dec 2011
Jan 2012 – Dec 2012

Contents

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco[edit]

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!
Ada Lovelace color.svg
Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.

The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome!

You must RSVP here - see you there!
SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland[edit]

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

biographies of editors of Flora Europaea etc[edit]

Hi. Many, though very belated, thanks for the barnstar you gave me on 14 July 2012. Since then I've done two more botanists namely E. F. Warburg and Werner Rothmaler, both of whom wrote or co-wrote floras. I'd be interested in any suggestions you might have as to who is still missing. Filling the gap is easiest where, as with Rothmaler, there is already an article in the wikipedia of another (European) language. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles discussion[edit]

Hi there. You have participated in past discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, namely about possible additions and deletions to the vital 1000 articles. There is a new, similar discussion there now, myself and other users are giving input as to whether they support or oppose the idea of certain articles being added or deleted from the vital 1000 like before. Some of the proposals have been brought up before, and some are new. There are only a small number of users giving their views but we would like more, if you are still interested we would appreciate your input there, thank you. Carlwev (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Radula (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Radula (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no point to having a DAB for a single ambiguous term. This should be a hatnote instead on the unambiguous article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hutcher (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Radula (disambiguation)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Radula (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PamD 17:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA[edit]

There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you pbp 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013[edit]

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions[edit]

  • Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
    • Nearest BART: 19th Street
    • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
    • Street parking abounds
EdwardsBot (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're invited...[edit]

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

  • Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
  • Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Present for you[edit]

Present for you on my user page. ;-) 512bits (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Heraldry and Vexillology project[edit]

Greetings! I have requested commentary from members of the heraldry and vexillology project at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Current direction of the HV project. Please comment there. Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

muscle
Thank you for sharing your knowledge in many languages on "... Paleobiology, Latin, Galician, ... and ... almost any other academic subject", - keep working on Muscle, we need it! - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 238th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 238th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 238 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Botany, FA candidate[edit]

A group of editors have been working these last months to prepare Botany for FA status, and we have now nominated it. As a major contributor to botanical articles, we would be very grateful for your opinion of the article, and for your support of it if you feel that is merited. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Doctor Who Classic GA[edit]

Hi, in response to your comment at WP:WHO, really as much information on classic Doctor Who as possible is welcome. I've promoted Genesis of the Daleks and The Rescue using primarily the DVDs, and I'm working on Remembrance of the Daleks but I have two episodes to watch with information text and I'm not sure if there will still be references needed after that (if there are I can let you know). I also have DVDs for Earthshock, Day of the Daleks, The Romans, and Terror of the Autons, though I don't know when I'll be able to get to them extensively. I'd say just pick a favorite serial or something you would like to see improved. I supposed we could make a list of really notable serials...The Tenth Planet, Spearhead from Space, The Three Doctors, The Ark in Space, and The Five Doctors come to mind. But anything is appreciated! Glimmer721 talk 02:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather, I'm offering to make my resources available. I really don't have time these days to write much myself, and have other projects vying for my time. But if you are working on a story and would like me to send reference material your way, I can probably manage that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'll let you know if I run into a problem with Remembrance. Glimmer721 talk 17:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon[edit]

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!
Hi EncycloPetey! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco.

Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!

SarahStierch (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley[edit]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!

The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.

You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Conocephalum conicum.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco[edit]

You are invited!Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco → Saturday, October 11, 2014, from 1-5 PM
Amy Tan.jpg

The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival.

Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meet, create and improve articles about literature and writers.

All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. Please bring your laptop.

The venue: Wikimedia Foundation offices (149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105) – Google Maps view

You must RSVP here — see you there! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Blaming of harrassment etc[edit]

You blocked towering peaks so this user can't give a reason. TW just wants a complete deletion of what was written online. It was deleted by Prosfilaes. Just remove the article deleted online and not to let it appear ever. That is what TW was asking and it was not granted. I hope that as editor you have the right human consciousness and not to blame someone one sidedly... a teacher and from california- you know what ethics are199.101.171.244 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please post concerns about Wikisource at Wikisource. This is Wikipedia, with different admins, different concerns, and different policies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yam and Mint. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8[edit]

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!
Art-and-feminism.svg
8 March San Francisco International Womens Day edit-a-thon.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending!

First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works!

Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course!

I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Wikispecies user box[edit]

I just wanted to remind you that you can promote Wikispecies by using the WS admin user box. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IFOCE.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IFOCE.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Cycad[edit]

Hi, you had asked me to look at splitting Cycad so that there was a place to link Medullosales. I've done what I think is a basic job. The pages could do with quite a lot of polishing, though. Do you know any good up-to-date(ish) references for generally accepted overall classifications of fossil plants, or even of the nomenclature? I didn't find my way to interesting material in this site. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no. And what I have heard through paleobotanist friends is not encouraging in that respect. It's all rather piecemeal, and even well-studied groups like ferns often have the fossils left out of any cladistic study or reclassification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I won't feel like such a dummy if I ask some of them later this summer. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Streptophya[edit]

This issue is related to the one above by Sminthopsis84, namely that at the upper levels and outside the APG system there is no widely accepted classification of plants, whether extinct or extant. I noticed the recent edits re "streptophytes" in the Plant article. The problem is that there are two incompatible circumscriptions in current use. In the Adl et al. (2012) usage (which I think is more mainstream), Streptophyta consists only of the stoneworts (Charophyceae) and embryophytes; Charophyta is a clade well above Streptophyta. In the other usage, Charophyta is included within Streptophyta. See the Streptophyta article, which is poor at explaining the issue – it's been on my "to do" list for ages.

So I think that some qualification is needed whenever the terms "charophyte" or "streptophyte" are used; they simply don't have a well-established meaning when you don't even know which clade includes which. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(By the way, I forgot to say that it's good to see you around here again! We need more competent plant editors.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2012 usage isn't mainstream yet (and may or may not be), but you do have a point. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that I wrote "more" mainstream; I agree that none of the classifications are "mainstream". Even "established" classifications are less certain than they once seemed; some evidence emerged recently that bryophytes may be monophyletic after all. It makes life interesting for botanists but not easy for Wikipedia editors! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of the papers that purport that bryophytes are monophyletic depend on a restricted data set, and thus suffer from the likelihood of long-branch attraction resulting from noise in the one or two genes that were studied. There is also still a significant problem with undersampling of some of the major groups of taxa--a problem that has plagued all these studies in bryophytes since they started doing them. One major German paper suffered from a failure to include any vascular plants in their study, so of course the bryophytes would look like a monophyletic group in their results. This particular area was my field of study in graduate school, and I've tried to follow it as best I can since then, although lacking access to a major research library has made that difficult. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Being here". I chime in a bit, but I'm spending most of my wiki-effort at Wikisource. I'm hoping we'll have a really good collection of sources on Ancient Greek drama, among other projects there. Though there are still a few articles I've intended to write or greatly expand for Wikipedia, and may get around to one of those sometime. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in with Peter coxhead's welcome; it is indeed good to see you here again, whether with lots of energy or simply with your well thought-out responses to a few matters. I've been wondering if there is some database of high-level nomenclature or fossil plants that wants wiki-style contributions such as adding the data from individual papers, but haven't found such a thing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've seen nothing either. At one time, I considered revising either the Equisetopsida (in the narrow sense of horsetails, calamites, sphenophylls, &c.) or the Marattiopsida, but kept finding dozens of papers out there describing new species and genera of fossils, without ever providing any synthetic articles bringing all the individual descriptions together or providing an updated classification. What I hear from my paleobotanist friends is that gymnosperms are even worse. The only collected work I ever found dealt with fossil bryophytes, and it is now very dated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is my experience as well as I noted briefly above. You can find individual articles giving molecular phylogenies of groups, but almost always with no attempt at a classification. There's no equivalent of the APG with an interest in synthesizing classifications for non-angiosperms. Even worse, when you do find classifications, they are often completely inconsistent with one another. The best I've found to date for fossil plants is in the article Polysporangiophyte; I keep looking for more up-to-date overall schemes, but haven't found one yet. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bryophyta s.s. and Marchantiophyta[edit]

Hello User:EncycloPetey

I was trying to add a classification scheme that was similar to the most recent phylogeny of the Marchantiophyta[1]. Now if we were to include only schemes that had the general concensus of the scientific community the these pages would be devoid of many current research ideas. And isn't that what Wikipedia is about, showing the general user the many and varied ideas about these topics. So the ideas might not be mainstream at this point but it shows an alternative view held by some, also it can be said Galileo's ideas weren't mainstream at the time but was vindicated subsequently. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do know what you were doing, but the classification schemes you added do not have the support of any scientific consensus. They are the result of a single paper, and also not the result of a general collaboration in the scientific field. The APG classification of angiosperms was a broad collaboration. The Goffinet classification of mosses was broadly accepted by bryologists. The Smith et al. classification of ferns has a broad acceptance in the scientific literature. This cannot be said of the latest Stotler classification of liverworts. The Stotlers publish a new classification every 10-15 years themselves, and there are several competing classifications in circulation. Choosing to use just one of the newer classifications, without a reasonably broad scientific consensus, violates WP:NOR and is inappropriate for any encyclopedic publication.
Your edits have also been problematic in a number of other ways, such as loading information into a taxobox summary that does not appear in the article, and which should not appear in a taxobox; you have been adding footnotes in section headers; and other problems as well.
If you believe that Wikipedia should adopt a particular classification scheme for a major group of plants, you can discuss that proposal in the WP:PLANTS group, which helps to add, coordinate, and maintain information about plants at Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Crandall-Stotler, Stotler & Long (2009). "Phylogeny and Classification of the Marchantiophyta" (PDF). Edinburgh Journal of Botany. 66 (1): 155–198. doi:10.1017/S0960428609005393. 

Resource Access[edit]

Apropos your comment at the Talk:Myocyte‎ page, I suggest you sign up for Wikipedia Library access to Wikipedia:DynaMed. There are some other journals available online listed at the library project that might also be useful. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 07:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. For most of these research opportunities, I have not applied in the past because my work and Wikisource activities limit the amount of time I have available to be productive. Since this one does not seem to have a limit on the number of applicants, I will look into making an application. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Broach / brooch at Azure (color)[edit]

The OED lists many senses for "broach", most of them technical, and none of them referring to jewellery or a clasp / fastening for clothing. (Another entry has an unrelated etymology.) Under "brooch" it lists (1) "an ornamental fastening ...", the other senses being obsolete. The etymologies are the same and apparently the spelling distinction has only arisen relatively recently, but it's observed nonetheless: see for example grammarist.com, grammarrule.blogspot.co.uk, grammar.about.com, Paul Brians. Note that the OED itself, though it gives "broach" as an alternative spelling, only lists the "ornamental fastening" sense under the headword "brooch" - OED often includes obsolete variants this way, since it's descriptive and not prescriptive. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevant points are that: (1) Both spellings are given for both entries. (2) Both entries have a definition of a pin used to fasten clothing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Please also see wikt:broach, which is up-to-date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No, as I explained above, the entry for "broach" does not, in fact, have a definition for a clothing-pin. That's only at "brooch". Unless you're looking at a different version of the OED than me? My source is the online version, linked above. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The information in the OED is at the entry for brooch, where you missed the fact that it can also be spelled broach. Wiktionary has the same information. Both spellings apply to the jewelry meaning, but the definitions and etymologies in the printed OED do not duplicate all the information, but instead note the alternative spellings. There is no consistent spelling distinction in modern English; it is very easy to find citation examples of broach in published books that clearly refer to the jewelry, and such a citation may be found in the Wiktionary entry I pointed to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternative use for deformed tree root picture?[edit]

Hello. I'm wondering if you can think of an alternative article use for this image, which you've just removed from root. Also, I'm curious whether someone interested in botany can tell more about the tree from the image alone (e.g., genus, possible diseases, etc.)? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb2s3 (talkcontribs) 21:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The best place to ask with regard to the botany would be at WP:PLANTS. But do keep in mind that not every picture uploaded to Commons is necessarily going to be used in an existing article at the English Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Help Me![edit]

Hi, I have a problem related to unicellular green algae, and i think that you are the one who can help me. i wanted to know which unicellular algae functions as indicators of clean water. Let me be more clear, Actually i am solving an biology crossword puzzle. so the clue to this algae is that it is a 7 letters long word and its second letter is "E". Ankit2299 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Habbakuk[edit]

Regarding [1]. You´re absolutly correct, and to be honest I didn´t even look at the source, if I had I wouldn´t have edited that way. What bugs me is that I expect a WP-article of this kind to sound more like my edit, take Jeremiah for instance, "Jeremiah is traditionally credited with authoring the Book of Jeremiah...". I have no problem with that, but "He is the author" says that he both existed and wrote as a historical fact.

Checking other minor prophets and their books, I see more inconsistencies like Habbakuk/Book of Habbakuk, and with Jewish Encyclopedia one could probably source "He is the author" in more of them. You could certainly change Book of Habakkuk (and the "Works" section of Habbakuk) with [2] if you wished.

Well regarded as the Jewish Encyclopedia may be, it´s old and I hope there´s better sources out there, but if I want to change these articles, it´s up to me to find them. Minor prophets states "Scholars usually assume that there exists an original core of prophetic tradition behind each book which can be attributed to the figure after whom it is named.[5]" (there´s that "attributed" I want), and that source (Floyd, Michael H (2000). Minor prophets) checks out (it´s on googlebooks). Of course, that´s not specifically Habakkuk, like JE. I´ll have to think some more, maybe I´ll try posting on a wikiproject or something. If I do, I´ll ping you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I could cite several dozen other scholarly sources identifying the author, but having a string of citations in the summary section would be more a distraction than a benefit. Quibbling over the name attached to the author of this work is pointless. The book of Habakkuk was written, and this is a fact. Someone must have written it, and we call that person Habakkuk. No details about this person are certain, but there are traditions about the author, and inferences made from the content of the book. Saying that the book is "attributed to" Habakkuk indicates nothing useful. "Habakkuk" is the name by which the author of this book is known, and is the only name by which he is known, whoever he may have been.
If you were talking about the Pentateuch (Torah) being attributed to Moses, then I would completely agree with "attributing" the book to him. If we were talking about the Athenian Society's translation of Aristophanes being "attributed" to Oscar Wilde, then I would agree. But for the book of Habakkuk, the issue is fruitless. Someone is the author, and the name scholars give to that author is Habakkuk, even though we don't know whether that was his name, whether it was a pseudonym, or someone other circumstance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27[edit]

Please join us in San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism
Panel discussion at a recent Wikipedia & Journalism event.

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:

  • The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
  • Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series on May 25[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, May 2016


See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) | Subscribe/Unsubscribe to the SF Meetups notice.

Mass addition of spam? link[edit]

I can see Dipentodon adding the same link to very many pages of botanical families. The link itself appears to be behind a paywall and I can't see it. However, whatever the merits or de-merits of the publication there seems to be little merit in blanketing so many articles with the same ref. It looks very much like link spamming to me. I note that you have reverted one addition and I have reverted four but before going for a mass reversion, I would welcome your comments. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  

I posted the start of a discussion about this at WP:PLANTS when I first noticed it, but received no comments. Dipentodon has gone on to add the same information everywhere over and over, often altering the classification system we're using, in order to fit the non-phylogenetic one apparently used in the cited paper. The result is that he's changed some articles about taxa (regardless of current name) into articles about names (regardless of the taxon to which it is applied). This is certainly counter to what we've decided to do at WP:PLANTS in previous discussions about such matters.
I can't access the paper either, but judging from what I have been able to find, it merely a species count paper by family, and it clearly doesn't take into account the current systems of classification of pteridophytes, nor does it permit any uncertainty in the number of species. Based on those two counts, I wouldn't rate it as a valuable source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I strongly support mass reversion. (The user also edits as an IP.) There's no attempt to check consistency with existing systems of classification or the existing text. So the total species count for a family may be updated based on this source, but not the counts for the genera of that family, based on other sources. I haven't had the time and energy to revert/fix all the problems I've noticed, but in general the edits are lowering the quality of the encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've left a message at User talk:Dipentodon trying to explain the issue. Potentially this is a good source (although I can't access it), but it has to be used with care and understanding, which is not the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, June 29[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have:

  • A brief report on Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Publice Library, coordinated by Merrilee:
    What topics might we cover in a follow up?
    Find out more about resources your public library provides to help with editing (hint, it's more than just books!)
    Special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)
  • Join in on an in person Wikidojo!
    Are you curious how your peers approach writing a Wikipedia article? This exercise, pioneered by Wikipedians Nikola Kalchev and Vassia Atanassova in 2015 and conducted in many places around the world, will help us all - from first-time wiki users to veteran Wikipedians - share ideas, while building an article together. If you have ideas (relating to Bay Area history, ideally) about a new article we could build (stubs and short existing articles are fine), please submit them ahead of time to coordinator Pete Forsyth. (User talk page or email is fine.)
    Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016


See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

REMINDER/invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, June 29 at 6 p.m.[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco tonight!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

If you cannot join in person or want to view portions later:

We will have:

  • Light snacks, and time to mingle
  • A brief report on the Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Public Library, that was coordinated by Wiki editor Merrilee
  • A special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)
  • Join in on a brief in person Wikidojo!
  • Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please register at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cjLRrSTlEkGOPTQ-h6A0WvSFI4ZmIUl6jEHp_RYas-E/viewform and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016


See you tonight! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice)

References[edit]

Hi EncycloPetey, to which plant references are you referring to and how to send you the file, more than likely its a pdf. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi EncycloPetey, I fixed the DOI link in the reference I missed out a dot in the doi address.
i.e. I used doi=10.3897/phytokeys.596261
instead of doi=10.3897/phytokeys.59.6261
It's fixed now so you can try the link again.
Hi, did you try it again, I have checked and it is working and the pdf file is free from PhytoKeysVidesh Ramsahai (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, give me some time to upload the file, probably in a couple hours. I will send you a link to my dropbox so you can download it.Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi here is d link to my drop box https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fyjomp7k3eolek9/AADvvR5DL-QBOfL9rg1go3Zaa?dl=0 . Tell me if you get it
It says the folder is empty. If I download I get an empty file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is my email send me a shout an i will send the file to you: videshramsahai@hotmail.com

Late breaking invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, July 27 (Wednesday) - change of venue - tonight[edit]

Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)

Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.

Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.


See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, Stephen and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, August 31[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have a brief presentation for your education and possible enjoyment:

  • Former EFF intern Marta Belcher will discuss crowdsourcing her Stanford Law School graduation speech using a wiki. The "WikiSpeech" was the subject of prominent national media attention in 2015, and more than half of her classmates contributed to writing and editing the commencement address via a wiki.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, August 2016


See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tonight: Live and archived links for Bay Area WikiSalon[edit]

Bay Area WikiSalon, Wednesday, August 31:

If you cannot join us in person tonight, we are streaming (and later archiving) the presentation by former EFF intern Marta Belcher. We expect her to be live starting between 6:30 or 6:45 p.m. PDT and talking and taking questions for about 30 minutes thereafter.

Here is the YouTube stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t8V79s2-og
Here is the link to join the Hangout on Air: https://hangouts.google.com/call/ezrol7dafjfwxfh2ilpkjyxoaue

You can search for it on the Commons and YouTube later too.

Wayne, Pete, Ben, and Stephen

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Paraphyletic taxoboxes[edit]

If Wikipedia doesn't allow non-cladistically based categories in taxoboxes, you may want to fix red algae too. That's the example I was copying from. Gould363 (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to. I assume you're making an assumption from some other edit, but you haven't clarified what that other edit might be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry: this was in reference to your reversion an edit I had made to brown algae adding Protista to the taxobox. (The audit trail in the article history doesn't actually seem to reflect that faithfully, though maybe I'm just looking at it wrong.) I had also made a few other edits; I'll need to redo those manually. Red algae includes Protista in the taxobox; you say that that is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.Gould363 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
"Protista" is an outdated wastebin group. At this point the higher-level classification of Rhodophyta has several competing schemes, no one of which is favored widely yet, but none of which include the concept of "Protista". That group has been dismantled into several kingdoms because "Protsita" is simply all Eukaryota with Fungi, Plants, and Animals removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The technical term for "wastebin" is "paraphyletic." I'm aware of its taxonomic status. Nevertheless, many biologists find paraphyletic groupings such as "moths" useful. I was simply informing you that if, as you say, Wikipedia's policy is to avoid them in taxoboxes, you might want to clean up the one at Red Algae, which reads Protista (that is, Red Algae and Brown Algae should be edited for consistency). I'm not going to make that edit myself, as I don't see it as particularly useful, but you seem to feel strongly about it.Gould363 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for mansplaining that to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You were the one mansplaining. I left you a courtesy note about an edit you might want to make; you ignored what I actually wrote and instead gave me a freshman biology lecture justifying the original reversion, which I wasn't disputing. Gould363 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your territorial behavior is showing[edit]

You seem to be working very hard at guarding an article. What exactly is going on with you? Do you not understand that no one owns these articles? Time to move to one side and stop making yourself look silly. I noticed that you got all hot under the collar about the material I included under "Origins" but then finally bothered to notice that I provided a reference. Nice to have your opinion about the reference, but the reference is sitting on my desk and is good enough and that is all that is needed. Zedshort (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your "reference" is a general textbook by a non-specialist who used out-of-date texts to create an inaccurate general description, which was then summarized by you. It is not good enough, as the information does not agree with current paleobtanical, phylogenetic, ecological, or bryological research. Thank you for your undergraduate freshman introductory course viewpoint, but that's just not good enough for an encyclopedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an encyclopedia being written here, not a summary of the latest and greatest reserch on Bryophytes. There is nothing wrong with keeping it simple. We don't need to reference only articles from specialists and specialized journals. Your insistance that only such references be used is just plain silly. If you do not recognize as correct and accurate all that I put in the "Origins" section as true, then I think you need to back to those basic texts and try reading them more closely. Try to get the basics right first. Zedshort (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Goodness you're arrogant. Thinking you know everything because you read a paragraph in a general textbook. Nevermind that the information in the textbook is contradicted by multiple sourced articles on Wikipedia, including the very article to which the information was added. Example: The oldest bryophytes date from the Ordovician, not the Silurian. Example: Bryophytes and vascular plants did not evolve independently and separately from aquatic ancestors, and the land plants are now universally considered to be monophyletic. Example: The earliest bryophytes were not aquatic; their fossils were terrestrial, and in fact only a small number of bryophyte genera are aquatic at all. Example: Aquatic plants lack stomata, but both hornworts and mosses have them. Example: the idea that bryophytes depend on rainwater is a temperate zone bias. Tundra species seldom get rainwater. And besides, most bryophytes are tropical epiphytes, and get their nutrients from detritus, the same as epiphytic orchids, cacti, and bromeliads. Thanks again for your undergraduate freshman introductory course viewpoint, but that's just not good enough for an encyclopedia, because it is in no way accurate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If you believe all that is so, then why don't you just add the material, written to suit yourself, rather than to simply delete material wholesale that I added because I saw that it was obviously missing from the article. Your immediate resort to deletion rather than to consider that the edit points to missing material is more a sign of ill will and territorial behavior than anything. Try working with the material rather than have a hissy fit and delete in a reaction. When I read an article, I come with questions and if I don't find them I seek elsewhere, return here and fill in the gaps. Zedshort (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your unrequested advice on how to spend my time and accomplish goals. And thanks again for for your uninformed opinions about me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If you would simply read the paragraph as the title suggests, "Origins" rather than reacting and reading it in the light of present day bryophytes it would make much more sense to you. The event of the population of the land mass by plants was of paramount importance, and it was done by bryophyte-like plants. It should be obvious that the bryophyte-like predecessors would have had to occupy only niches very similar to that of total immersion of water. Their present diversity as a result of adaptation to other environments obviously came much later. Finally, some mention of how bryophytes feed should be made. Zedshort (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I did read that section, but I also know what the fossils and the current systematics actually show. The "immersed" ancestors were green algae, and there is no phylogenetic nor fossil evidence of any immersed bryophyte ancestry. There has been speculation since Victorian times, but all scientific research of the past fifty years points to the contrary. The few aquatic lineages, such as Sphagnum and Naiadita, are secondarily derived. Bryophytes feed like most plants: they make their own food through photosynthesis. That's what autotrophs do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, green algae (eukaryotic plants) that had become associated into larger more complicated things that were slowly acclimated to another environment. I understand that the fossil record for such soft bodied things are hazy, and it is speculation that I am repeating here as to how plants moved on to the land but it is speculation that has sources and that is approriate. As for whether bryophytes had that origin as progenitor of all land plants is the question but some believe that was so. While bryophites may be photosynthetic, they must use minerals and those must be delivered to the plant somehow and distributed within the plant somehow; they can't live only on carbon dioxide and water and sunlight, and they are not vascular. I addressed both of those subjects as they were both missing from the article. Zedshort (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, we have fossil charophytes, both fossilized oogonia from plants like Chara and fossil thalli of plants like Coleochaete. We also have extensive fragmentary and molecular evidence of cutin and epidermis from as far back as the Cambrian. The record is far from hazy at this point, because there has been a wealth of research over the last fifty years. We no longer need to speculate.
The acquisition of minerals and other micronutrients is not "feeding" though. It has nothing to do with feeding. And you failed to consider that (1) micronutrients are needed in very small quantities, (2) bryophtes have far less total biomass tan vascular plants,(3) bryophytes grow in closer contact with their substrate, (4) they do not have the same growth rate as most vascular plants, and (5) conductive tissue exists in several groups of liverworts and in most mosses. Everything you stated then is speculative, without considering these differences, and is not based on any actual research. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, September 28[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no formal agenda to allow people to freely share ideas and perhaps learn about Wikipedia through hands-on editing. Co-organizer Ben Creasy will be looking at election-related articles to enhance the information available in the upcoming November elections.

Official logo of Wiki Loves Monuments

Co-organizer Stephen LaPorte has suggested doing an upload-a-thon for Wiki Loves Monuments. Niki, the California coordinator for WLM will be in attendance. WLM is an annual event and the official dealine is Friday the 30th for submissions to count towards awards.

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, or a stool and do your own thing.

Wikimedia community logo (public domain)

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, September 2016. Mark your calendars now for the 3rd Wednesday in October, the 26th, when we will have a brief presentation.


See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

cyanobacteria[edit]

The Joneses ARE a family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.85.149 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

But "Joneses" is not the proper name of a taxon, it is the plural form of a English proper name that also exists in the singular as a proper name. The situation is therefore not equivalent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Useful to refer those who insist on changing grammatical number in relation to taxa to WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to a Wednesday evening event in SF[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Hi folks,

Please copy and share this on other talk pages. We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather at the Wikimedia Foundation lounge to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no meaty agenda this month, but we will allow a brief period for:

  • Open mic for anybody who attended WikiConference North America 2016 in San Diego last week and wants to share their takeaway
  • Question & answer
  • Open mic for announcements
  • Maybe a focus on some topical election article editing with Ben?

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, a stool or counter and do your own thing.

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, October 2016.


PS: Mark your calendars ahead now for the 3rd Wednesday in November, the 30th (the week after Thanksgiving), at 6 p.m. when our WikiSalon will host a super awesome top secret mystery guest mingling in our midst. We will announce specifics at the upcoming WikiSalon.


See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen, Jacob, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Plant morphology Comment[edit]

There was a summary left. You meant to write "the current summary is inadequate to allow for content splitting" in your edit summary. I'll make a better one now. As an aside, what did your previous edit summary mean "improper transfer violates terms of MW"? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 04:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the introductory paragraphs were left, but the material that was removed was not summarized. In any case, much of the material does not belong at plant development because it is not about that topic. The new article should be pruned / revised / expanded to clarify its proper scope, and some of the material should be left behind (either intact or in summarized form) at plant morphology.
There was no mention made at either end of where the content had gone or where it had originated. The editor thus implicitly claimed to be the sole author of the material added to the new plant development article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, and I've left a comment on his talk page and added the appropriate templates on both Plant development and Plant morphology, so that's all taken care of. And yeah I see what you mean, the development section of Plant morphology is about development and growth in the context of morphology, not just "plant development". I think I'll leave it as it is and cut down the Plant development article so it doesn't concentrate on morphology so much. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As nuvens[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message about the mistake on the page above. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, EncycloPetey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Everybody is invited to the November 30 Bay Area WikiSalon[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Details and RSVP here.


See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon series: Everybody is invited this Wednesday evening at 6[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki and open-source enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

Before and after the brief presentation we allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks.


In addition, this month we will have:

  • a brief presentation from User:Cullen328 (Jim Heaphy) about the Wikipedia Teahouse
  • spontaneous lightning talks from the floor
  • community announcements from the floor

For details and to RSVP see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, December 2016


See you soon! Ben Creasy and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

+++++
P.S. Any help spreading the word through social media or other avenues is most welcome! We plan to announce this on various sites and invite various groups; if you would like to join in, check our meta planning page, and please note any announcements you are sending out: meta:Monthly WikiSalon in San Francisco#Announcements and promotion

Please feel free to add to, refine, reorganize or edit the above linked page: it is a wiki!

We need more helpers and organizers, so if you see a need, please jump in, or talk to us about it! You can add your username to the meta page where appropriate, or create a new role!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Reminder invitation to the December Bay Area WikiSalon[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Hi, everybody.

We are excited to remind you of the ninth in the Bay Area WikiSalon series that is coming up this Wednesday evening at 6 p.m.

  • Details (RSVP suggested) here (RSVP helps us know how much food and drink to bring in)

What is a WikiSalon? A monthly safe and inclusive meatspace event conducted in organized chaos and we all clean up the mess afterwards. Livestream links for the presentation are available during presentation months, and will be forthcoming for those of you that cannot attend. December is a presentation month.


Hope to see you there! Wayne (and Ben) - co-organizers
Any last minute questions or suggestions? Please ping or email Ben or me. | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Archived link for December Bay Area WikiSalon[edit]

Hi, y'all. In case you missed it and want to watch the archive reel; the topic was The Wikipedia Teahouse and the presenter was well respected Wikimedian Jim Heaphy [[User:Cullen328]]

  • Archive link (also includes intro, announcements, and a lightning talk)
  • Details about Bay Area WikiSalon for December here

The full title of Jim's presentation was: Welcoming and Helping New Editors: A Month at the Wikipedia Teahouse: an overview of the Teahouse and an analysis of over 300 Teahouse conversations during the month of August, 2016

Jim gave a longer version of this presentation in October at WikiConference North America 2016 in San Diego, California.


Cheers! Co-organizer Checkingfax - and co-organizer Ben Creasy | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)


PS: Mark your calendars now for Sunday, January 15 at 2 p.m. which will be Wikipedia's 16th Birthday party hosted by Bay Area WikiSalon! Details to follow soon. If you want to help plan it, get in touch with us ASAP!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to a birthday bash to Celebrate Wikipedia's 16th Birthday![edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Cut the cake

Wikipedia Day 16 SF is a fun Birthday bash and edit-a-thon on Sunday, January 15, 2017, hosted by Bay Area WikiSalon at the Wikimedia Foundation's Chip Deubner Lounge in the South of Market Street business district.

Wikimedia Community logo

For details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/SF/Wikipedia Day 2017

The San Francisco gathering is one of a number of Wikipedia Day celebrations worldwide.


See you soon! Ben Creasy, Checkingfax and Slaporte | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this notice)


PS: We need volunteers to help make this a fun and worthwhile event. Please add your name to the Project page, and what you can offer. It is a wiki, so please make direct edits to the page.

Bay Area WikiSalon usually meets the last Wednesday evening of every month as an inclusive and safe place to collaborate, mingle, munch and learn about new projects and ideas.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminder invitation to the Wikipedia Day 16 birthday bash & edit-a-thon[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Cut the cake

Wikipedia Day 16 SF is a fun Birthday bash and edit-a-thon on Sunday, January 15, 2017, hosted by Bay Area WikiSalon at the Wikimedia Foundation's Chip Deubner Lounge in the South of Market Street business district and everybody is invited!

Wikimedia Community logo
Details and RSVP here

See you Sunday! Ben Creasy, Checkingfax and Slaporte


PS: We still need more volunteers to help make this a fun and worthwhile event. Please add what you can offer and your name to the Project page or Talk about it. It is a wiki, so please make direct edits to the Project page. The event is already growing due to volunteers that have stepped up so far. Face-smile.svg


Bay Area WikiSalon meets one evening of every month as an inclusive and safe place to collaborate, mingle, munch or learn about new projects and ideas.

Note: the previous invitation had a bum wikilink. Sorry! | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this notice) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)