User talk:Hardyplants

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


Hello, Hardyplants, 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:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)



Indeed... it's more a pasture and garden problem than a cultivated field problem. In general though, discussion of weed controls on wikipedia are kept to a minumum. If you're interested in the topic, however, I'm looking for collaborators on the wikibooks versions of these articles; see b:Category:Weed_profiles for the ones I've worked on so far. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Hardyplants. Can I ask about your edits to the page on tepals? The description that you added on 11 December, titled "clean up and clarify" seems to be at odds with the usual definition of a tepal. Do you have links to any material which supports your definition? Thanks. Owl 14:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

>Can you be more specific about what you are questioning, I listed two sources on 'additional reading'

The first paragraph of your article refers to tepals as a specific feature of the Magnoliaceae. This is at conflict with several sources online, as well as the previous version of the article on Wikipedia. I don't have access to a library at the moment, so I can't check the books you've referenced. I happen to have "Plants: Diversity and Evolution" (Ingrouille and Eddie, Cambridge University Press, 2006) here, however. It is definitely referring to tepals in plants other than magnolias. I find the previous version of the article ( to be clearer and more consistent with how other sources seem to be using the word. Perhaps you would like to view that version, and clarify the text as it stands (which is basically your version, I've just tidied up the styling a bit. Oh, and just to note - could you post on my talk page, not my user page, please? I have moved the conversation across. Thanks. Owl 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't produce the first part but brought it up from the original start of the article. Keep in mind that Magnolia is the proposed fist flowering plant line. I do not believe any modern Magnolia corresponds the first of its kind. I will look at the article and move the first section- since you are right that its a meaning that is rarely used and should not be at the beginning. Hardyplants 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still think the earlier version sounds clearer and more authoritative. Please don't be offended, but can I ask if English is your first language? Perhaps we should start with the previous version (link in my post above). What do you think is wrong with that as it stands? If we add back in the paragraph about evolution, do you think that is a fair description of a tepal? Owl 17:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw your new edits - it was clearer than before, but I'm afraid I still didn't think it was as coherent and clear as I'd expect of an encyclopaedia. I've taken the liberty of editing the page myself. I've started from the earlier version, and tried to add in everything that I thought you were saying. Have a look, and if you think I've missed something that you said, let me know. Thanks. Owl 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Hardyplants. Someone who wasn't logged in, at IP, reverted to your version of the Tepal article. Was this you? I must say I disagree with the revert. If you stand by your version of the article, I would like to take it to the Mediation Cabal, to get a third opinion. Thanks. Owl 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Hardyplants - Thanks for your productive editing! I came across the page you had started on Embryonic, where you changed it from a redirect to Embryo. There's already quite a good page on plant development (Plant embryogenesis); maybe you could add some of your information to that? It seems to me that Embryonic should go back to forwarding to Embryo, which touches both plant and animal development. What do you think? Cheers, Figma 19:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Acanthomintha duttonii[edit]

Why did you remove the references from the lead paragraph of Acanthomintha duttonii? Mike Dillon 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the references in for your second pass. I think your changes to the lead paragraph have improved readability. Mike Dillon 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Two things. First, please be more careful with stray line breaks; they make it hard to use the "history" tab to see what has been done to an article by making inline changes look like entire paragraphs were removed. Second, what are you doing with the "[4]" stuff instead of the original references? Were they meant to refer to the Jepson manual? I've assumed that was the case and restored the "ref" syntax. Mike Dillon 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your image upload includes statements that the image is copyrighted by the photographer. Has it been released by him? Or what? Great photo, though. KP Botany 03:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it was taken from here. The copyright statement is for non-commercial use ("personal or academic") and requires attribution. The original image uploaded by User:Anlace was incorrectly tagged with a Creative Commons license (unless Anlace is actually John Game and relicensed it himself or was granted a separate license). Also, the image on the CalPhotos site is higher resolution and would be a better source for User:Hardyplants's enlargement than the one uploaded by Anlace. This discussion might be more suited for another talk page... Mike Dillon 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wherever the discussion belongs the image must be removed immediately. KP Botany 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New article creations[edit]

Greetings! Thanks for your recent contributions to the goal of WikiProject Plants (e.g. Pentaphyllacaceae, Sladeniaceae). I was just wondering if you could make an effort to apply our standard format to the articles (see Stylidiaceae for a good example of a starter article with the correct formatting). Specifically, we'd like to see a {{Taxobox}} on each plant taxa article, bold titles (as in, the first mention of the subject of the article), and italicized genus and species names. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Also consider joining us at WP:PLANTS, where we look to other editors interested in botany for help on specific items. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stylidium graminifolium[edit]

Greetings! I appreciate your enthusiasm for this article, but I had to revert your edits again. I maintained one sentence in the intro that you had contributed, reworded and referenced it, but the other edits introduced grammar mistakes and weren't of any great importance to the context of the article. If you can provide rationale for why these minor changes are necessary, I'll reconsider. Best, --Rkitko (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cease adding back the changes I've reverted and considering discussing this here or at Talk:Stylidium graminifolium. I must also inform you of Wikipedia's three revert rule. --Rkitko (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this: I am well aware of WP:OWN and I have not yet violated it. I reverted your edits for poor grammar, none of which was really worth correcting instead of reverting since it said essentially the same thing that was in the article before your edit. I then made an effort to contact you to discuss the changes you wished to make to the article but received no reply. I have reworded and referenced one contribution you made and the edit you made concerning flower shape was not reverted. Someone violating WP:OWN would most likely not be keeping some of your contributions in the article. As I suggested above, we should discuss the changes you'd like to see on the article so we can work together on it. Beyond that, I would ask that any major contribution you make to the article be referenced with a source. Review WP:CITE and WP:V for more information. Just out of curiosity, where have you been reading up on this plant? I've gotten nearly every obscure piece of academic literature on it and haven't seen one yet that specifically discusses the germination requirements. The Hort. paper by Darnowski notes that the genus sometimes requires smoke treatments, but S. graminifolium is one of the few that doesn't necessarily require it for germination success. Perhaps a rewording is in order to "highest germination success" or something similar. You can leave a response here, on my talk page, or at Talk:Stylidium graminifolium. Best, --Rkitko (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Seed photos[edit]

You wrote:

Mr. Clark thank you for your response, I have seeds of H. hispanica that I can photograph and add to the page, I can also show the seeds after they take in water- they like many species of salvia and other genera develop a thick gelatinous coat that is interesting. I also have seeds for almost 3,000 species of herbaceous plants and have wondered if it would be worth while adding pictures of them to wikipedia, hate to go threw the work and find that they have no use. Hardyplants 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think such photos would be immensely valuable even if not all were used in Wikipedia articles. I'm assuming they would be at adequate magnification to see details (and it would be useful to have a scale of some sort in the photo), and that you'd take care not to include species that you believe to be misidentified. Identification of species (or even genera) from their seeds is often difficult, from lack of good reference material.

It would be best to place the photos on [Wikimedia Commons] so they can be used in Wikipedias in all languages. And post a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants so editors of plant articles will know that the resource is available. I'd start out with a few, to see how much trouble it is and get suggestions from other editors for improving quality.

In short, potentially a really valuable contribution.--Curtis Clark 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time in responding, I can take good quality pictures but have had problems with the images being to large 1.5 to 2 mgs. I can take the pictures with a 100 to 1,000 magnification with good resolution, this depends on the size of the seed, Peony species have large seeds but the Lady-slipper Orchid seeds I have are very small. To do it right I will have to construct a box that is lighted on four sides and uses a diffused light source - otherwise Its takes a lot of time to adjust the images with a photo editing program for contrast.

For the vast majority of the seeds I have I am very sure of the IDs, Sometimes I get seeds from Siberia and other Parts of Russia that come to me labeled with obscure names which are sometimes misspelled, its a choir to go threw the data bases to find the synonyms when you have the wrong spelling. Id of those species is tenitiv often, even after growing them out - since there is little info on them in English and no pictures. But its not difficult to see if the seed is in the right family or genus most of the time, but if its the right species thats a different kettle of fish.

Now that spring is here, I will be working a lot, it will take me a few weeks to get set-up. We do not have "spring" here in Minnesota - it goes from winter to summer in a few weeks, especially with the warming trend we are in now because of greenhouse gases and solar output. Here is some samples of picture I have posted already, no seeds. Hardyplants 10:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Stem nodes.jpg
Stem showing internode and nodes plus leaf petiole and new stem rising from node.
Young Northern Cardinal in Minnesota.
An albino gray squirrel

Global warming[edit]

The authors of both the letter and of the page in question are pretty clear. It looks to me like the proper use of a primary source, generally speaking (purely descriptive claim, attributed to the source rather than in an editorial voice.) Regardless, though, the inclusion of the material should be discussed as a whole. If you believe the source is inappropriate, by all means argue against its inclusion, but we've never done "disclaimers" like that. Specification of the exact number isn't problematic, of course, an increase in specificity is always good. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From your somewhat verbose answer I am going to conclude that you did not understand the issue. Simply stated: If Tom says that S=4. And Ken produces a book saying that Tom is wrong. Then Tom produces a article in wikipedia about Ken's book, and says "many think" Tom is wrong and uses a quote from his own web (Toms) page as evidence that Ken is wrong and Tom is thus part of the many that he uses as a reference.

Would it not be proper to state in the page in wikipedia that the page is heavily produced by Tom when the pages uses him as an expert also.

I do not have a problem with the reference as long as those reading the page know that the person being quoited as an expert, is also the one producing the Article.Hardyplants 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusion is incorrect. Yes, I understand the issue, that you wish to insert some type of disclaimer that someone being cited has also worked on the article. No, we don't do that. You're welcome to argue that the material is inappropriate to include at all, and you might have a good case for that, but if it's determined that it is appropriate, no disclaimers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Poison ivy[edit]

Yup, that's the way it's done now, although still rather new. When the common name is used for more than one species, and it is something like poison ivy, where the plant is not an ivy, but rather a member of the cashew family, it is hyphenated to indicate it's not an ivy. This issue properly belongs on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Please raise it there if you like. KP Botany 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/April 2007/hardyplants[edit]

Hi Hardyplants. I am interested in trying to help with your request. If you would like to accept this, please drop me a line at my talk page. Thank you. --Dweller 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Would you prefer me to close the case at AMA, or is it that you would simply prefer a different member to assist you? --Dweller 08:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i wish to drop the case, after giving it much thought I have decided that it is not worth the time. I wished to contribute to the page in question because it already had a good start and I had some more information and some points that would have made it more clear, but its a low priority and other items are more useful to spend time on. If you would like to still look at the issue here is a link with my edits compared to the other editors page My apologies for the slow response. Hardyplants 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll close the case if you wish to drop the case. --Dweller 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and close the case, thank youHardyplants 10:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting vandals to WP:AIV[edit]

Hi Hardyplants, thanks for your report! In future, please format reports like this: * {{IPvandal|IP Address}} below the User reported section. If you format it otherwise, the bot which removes blocked users from the list gets confused. Don't add new sections - it's all done for you already :) Thanks, and keep fighting the good fight. – Riana 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 11 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stolon, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Uvularia thing[edit]

No, I was just confused, as just before you edited the genus page, you had removed that series of "all caps" names from the image field of a taxobox, and thought you might have hit "paste" when you meant "copy" or something along those lines. Then I went further into the histories of both pages and got even more confused :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 08:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I have small fields of these growing along the creek on my farm. I'll try to get some more pix when they come into bloom. I've never dug them up, but might end up "rescuing" some this year from an area where the tractor will need to go through. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Bio barnstar2.png The Bio-star
For your extensive work with plant-related article, I present you with the Bio-star award. Circeus 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Thymophylla[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Thymophylla, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Thymophylla is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Thymophylla, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


At the time I deleted the article, it consisted only of an image and a taxobox with no text, and therefore wasn't really an article. It hadn't been edited for an hour, so it didn't look like an article in production, and I had no way of knowing if the creator would ever return to it. It's best keep an article on your word processor until there is enough to survive a speedy deletion.

I'm not sure why I didn't put a reason, presumably I either thought it was self-evident or simply forgot to do so - either way my apologies for that omission.

You said I deleted the picture too. I don't think that is correct. The current image appears to be the one uploaded before the article was deleted, and I don't remember deleting the apparently validly licensed image. Hope this clarifies things, and sorry again for not giving a reason, jimfbleak 05:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV Request[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for making a report about (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. No final warning for Left uw-vandal4, but some edits look legit -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I've undone your revert to the Stuartia article; it lost far too much new information that I had added (and which in fact supported the spelling as "Stewartia"). As several editors have taken an interest in this article, if you intend to edit it, I would suggest discussing it on the talk page first. MrDarwin 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Plant articles[edit]

Hi Hardyplants - couple of requests as per the wiki Manual of Style - could you use scientific measures on plant pages, not imperial units (incomprehensible to 90% of the world's population); also (re your additions to e.g. Verbascum thapsus) to use spellings relevant to the page (thus American English or Canadian English for American native plants, British English for European native plants, Commonwealth English for Asian plants, etc.). Thanks! - MPF 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Although MPF perhaps exaggerates the percentage of people who don't comprehend Imperial units, keep in mind that the percentage of people who do comprehend metric units of length, volume, mass, and temperature is even greater, and they are the norm in modern US scientific publications. Imperial units may be provided in parentheses.--Curtis Clark 01:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not good to edit other people's talk page contributions.[edit]

See WP:TALK#Others.27_comments . I have reverted your edit [1] as it inserted talk into mine and messed with what I said. If you want that word in the article you are going to have to come up with much better cites than what you have provided to date. I have no problems with him being an atheist but it is an attribute taken out of context for that article. His other attributes that are verifiable are descriptions that are more worthy for inclusion as they are more topical to that particular book article. Your trying to insert one unreferenced word "atheist" is based on your own research or interpretation of the references and how you can apply them to a passing reference that is secondary to the book synopsis. Ttiotsw 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Go back are read over the refs, its clear those that new of him new he was an atheist:


::# CANABAL. Handsome as the Hollywood villain of Mexican cinema, His Excellency Tomas Garrido Canabal has been the terror of Catholics as Governor of the State of Tabasco. "What is God?", Canabal is fond of sneering. "Nobody can tell me, but God has cost Mexico billions! We are going to stop that waste." Most people thought Canabal would pop up in the Cardenas Cabinet as Minister of Education, to scourge the pious with fresh assaults of Godless teaching.

Hardyplants 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote - "I have no problems with him being an atheist but it is an attribute taken out of context for that article."
Basically your cites do not support the claim of atheism in the context of this article. I am not doubting he is "atheist", what I am doubting is how you are plucking one word that isn't obvious from the cites should be used.
This is like repeatedly calling a plant (e.g. Gorse) an "invasive" species when the context of the article was Gorse in Scottish art and citing New Zealand references to Gorse. No one doubts gorse can be invasive but in a Scottish article indirectly related to the subject ?.Ttiotsw 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

here we go:

The book is about a anti-religious atheist that eliminates the catholic church from Mexico and his persecution of a tainted priest.. Its generally know that the book uses Garrido Canabal as its arch-type. In real life Garrido Canabal was an atheist that persuced the church in Mexico. so you are saying that the fact that Canabal is an atheist whom persecuted the church in Mexico, in similar fashion to the character in the book, does not relate to the book. The motivation for both the real person and the character in the book is their atheism. Hardyplants 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal[edit]

Look I don't go around "purging sources" of any kind. I reviewed your sources because I have Religion on my watch list and I noticed the reverts. So I looked into the sources and you know the rest. This is pretty normal editorial behavior and its not personal by any means. Also, if you didn't realize what the guidelines for reliability were then its no big deal. Now you know where to find them. Just as an aside, however, in academia materials such as the ones you used as references would not be deemed reliable either and would not be acceptable sources even in a student paper. At least this is the case in the United States. Again, no worries, just take a look at the guidelines.PelleSmith 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the guidelines, looked at them when a problem came up in another article were some one used there own online blog as a reference and it was voted on that it was a legitimate source. Its Ok I will post some hard cover sources- and I do not mind the questions about clarifying the sources. So do not worry about any hard feelings. Hardyplants 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

your comments on Talk:Geological history of Earth[edit]

your comments- I would cut out 90% of the parts talking about life on earth and move it to its own page, and start with the creation of the soler system and the differences between the earth and other plants. Then move on to covering the two driving forces effecting geology of the earth- the oceans and the water cycle and plate tectonics. SXo basicly I think it would flow better and make more sense in the outline format:

  • cause of geologically change: formation of the sun, planet, ocean, plate tectonics weathering etc.
  • effects of geologically change
  • results of geologically change; change in atmosphere, life, continental drift, mountain building etc.

Hardyplants 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

my comments- as far as i have get from your comments i think you are willing to remove the life on earth section from the article. ummhhh... i think the article specifies a bit about life on earth. i have added that section in order to make it more encyclopedic. the article specifies more about geological timeline and physical features of the earth. thanks, sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
fine i am re-re structuring the page. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi. Since you were taking an interest in some edits I did there (Goliath) recently, you might like to go back and see what I've done since then. I'd value your comments and input. PiCo 12:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Randy DuBurke[edit]

I have reverted your removal of the ((notability)) tag at the article Randy DuBurke because you left no summery or talk explaining its removal. If you have a rational why the tag is incorrect or if you did some thing else to address the underlying problem please explain it before removing the tag. Thank you. 04:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You should get a username here on Wikipedia, below is a edit summery

User talk:

  • 22:18, 20 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoot (←Replaced page with 'dick')
  • 17:05, 20 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Randy DuBurke (added notability tag)

I checked on the notability of Burke on the net and He looked "good" so reverted your edit as more vandalism. Hardyplants 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Storage organ
Anemone sylvestris
Northern red anemone
Rubus occidentalis
Anemone coronaria
Anemone ranunculoides
Anemone nemorosa
Marriageable age
False anemone
Cama (animal)
Chad (paper)
Rose of Jericho
Axillary bud
Add Sources
David and Jonathan
Henry B. Plant
Pelton's Rose Gentian
Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Project Plants[edit]

Hey, you've made a ton of edits on plant articles! Why don't you join ProjectPlants? Aelwyn 09:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lathyrus lanszwertii[edit]

I'm trying to understand the situation with this plant, why IPNI lists it as it does, but you seem to be trying to prove something you already know. Can we work towards resolving the situation about why IPNI says what it does, with all of the information, or if you already know what you want to do about it, please just spell out why, so I can understand where you're coming from? When IPNI lists something like this, there is a reason in the literature for it, I would like the article to be accurate--knowing the reason also means we can include information so that our readers won't be confused by what they find. KP Botany 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize, you had said before that you use horticultural resources, and if I had remembered that I would have understood where you were coming from on this. KP Botany 00:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Goliath's armour[edit]

Hi. I deleted your link to the Speiser article on ancient armour, for reasons I've described on the talk page. But I do appreciate your input, and I hope you'll continue to monitor what I write in a similar critical fashion. (I'd appreciate any comments you might like to leave on the Talk page regarding my arguments there).PiCo 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Your addition about the Speiser material was good. I've made an amendment to merge it with the Yadin material. Grateful to know what you think. PiCo 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a new para on textual variants of the Goliath story. If you have time, I'd appreciate your assessment. As for the Greek armour question, I'm still investigating and considering and will get back on it in due course. (Hope I'm not bothering you with this, but I like to have someone with a critical eye watching what I edit). PiCo 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the Sumamry section, it's exactly the input I want. I've changed "wounds" to "strikes", which is closer to the textual meaning I think (certainly more in keeping with the KJV "smote", and also to modern translations). It's verse 50 that's the problem: it clearly says "David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; there was no sword in the hand of David." It seems to have been an interpolation into the original etxt, as it's not in the LXX, and without it there's no ambiguity about how David killed Goliath - stunned him with the stone, then decapitated him. One does wonder what Goliath's armour-bearer was doing all this time.PiCo 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the current text, it starts off with Goliath being wounded and then hes dead and then its says he is killed because his head was cut off. To me it looks like what it might have said was David wounds or strikes down Goliath with the stone and David kills him by cutting off his head with Goliaths own sword. Instead we have a text that adds the extra word (kills) or is missing a word that links the second kills to the rest by way of saying this is how David kills Goliath.

I am inclined to believe that the story was told like so -

Thus David 01732 prevailed 02388 over 04480 the Philistine 06430 with a sling and a stone 068, and he struck 05221 the Philistine 06430 and killed 04191 him; but (because) there 0369 was no 0369 sword 02719 in David's 01732 hand 03027. {to kill Goliath}Then David 01732 ran 07323 and stood 05975 over 0413 the Philistine 06430 and took 03947 his sword 02719 and drew 08025 it out of its sheath 08593 and killed 04191 him, and cut 03772 off 03772 his head 07218 with it

. The texts seems to beg for an explanation of how Goliath was killed and implies the stone was not enough to do the job right away. We might never know though unless an older fragment shows up some were. For a modern take on the word smote look at this 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"One does wonder what Goliath's armour-bearer was doing all this time."
what is the job of an armour bearer- to clean and put away and transport the weapons, I think also to help the solder to get dressed, sounds more like a clerk to me If you were a good boss your clerk might sacrife his life for you, on the other hand, if you are hard difficult boss he might be happy to see you face down in the dirt with a stone in your head. Hardyplants 12:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Carya aquatica[edit]

Thanks, it needs work, but I really don't have the time, and was hoping someone would jump to the rescue. I'm going to unwatch now that you have it. KP Botany 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Decurrent at AFD[edit]

Just in case you hadn't noticed. The debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decurrent. Circeus 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


The link does not justify the quote. Appears to be a Wikipedian's own translation from the French, misusing Whom. Though, if you can live with the grammatical error, and its misleading citation, so can I. Cheers, DBaba 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhabdocline pseudotsugae[edit]

Amazing how the urge to expand an article can just spread like that. : ) Nice work btw. IvoShandor 10:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use talk section on State atheism before reverting.[edit]

Even your own source you provided does not state Sunday was eliminated it just says that it had less of a chance of being a holiday. Lenin introduced the Gregorian calendar though subsequently this was altered in bizarre ways to improve production and utilise machinery though as it would happen central planning isn't really up to managing realities. Please reconsider if the text you have added really reflects the sources you are providing as I feel it doesn't. Why I was claiming it is synthesis (in associating it with "state atheism" is that Lenin introduced the Gregorian calendar so the case isn't as clear as the article claims it is and it is original research to grow the scope of what a source says (in this case sticking in the word "eliminate"). Ttiotsw 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Go back a read it again... it clearly says "In only one respect the five-day week was an unqualified success, from the Soviet point of view. It did help to make people forget Sunday" if Sunday was still around how could they forget it. The week ends were eliminated and staggered five day weeks implemented, this did not work so they moved to a week with out Sundays instead going to a six day week. Since a seven day week is very important in regards to religious holidays and the sabbath and the Lords day- the only real purpose for such an odd work week is to do away with those days. As the article on wikipedia even says. Hardyplants 12:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

...and then the source says "it had less of a chance of being a holiday..." but how can it even have any chance of being a holiday at all ?. No, it is still there except it's rarely a day off work. This is why the claim of "elimination" is dubious.
Also what we have is Lenin (I think he was a Marxist and Communist !) introduces the Gregorian calendar and many years later the Government mucks around with it, so even the blanket claims that "State atheism" are unclear. This is once again about "anti clericalism". Ttiotsw 12:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:STALK before cherry-picking reverts on my edits. Please read the sources too ![edit]

You reverted one of my edits from 4 days ago in an article that is meticulously watched by many other editors and has had nearly a dozen changes since my one small change and in which you never (AFAIKS) have edited before. OK I'm not really worried about stalking but your edit summary was "this is unclear and does nor follow the source given.". This doesn't make sense as you have reverted it to say....."in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have disturbing precedents." and yet the source provided only uses the word disturbing in the sentence, "Dawkins nourishes a disturbing contempt for religious believers.". The word "precedents" is uniquely used in the source as, ...".... the precedents of such medical analogies, applied to certain religious and racial groups, have hardly been innocuous in the history of the 20th century." and this is why I wrote my version which used "innocuous" in it !. Please explain why you have created your own material that says "disturbing precedents" in it when that phrase (and nothing like it) is in the source ? Ttiotsw 12:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

simple...your edit made no sense. it was not a direct quote but a summation - go back and read the entire news clip again, your edit only mudded his meaning and I fear deliberately. .Hardyplants 12:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to change it from my version (below) to line up with the literal words and meaning of the source.

John Cornwell in his book Darwin's Angel and elsewhere[1] suggests that there are several lapses of understanding in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have disturbing precedents.

Then you can change it to "suggests that there are several lapses of understanding in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have precedent in Nazi Germany."

" He refers to believers as "faith sufferers", and to himself and like-minded associates as "we doctors". Much as I am convinced that Dawkins deplores the ideology of nazism, the precedents of such medical analogies, applied to certain religious and racial groups, have hardly been innocuous in the history of the 20th century. Nazi ideology subscribed from the very outset to the idea of the German people as a type of anatomy subject to bacilli. It harped on the introduction of undesirable extraneous influences on the healthy societal body, the Volkskorper, behaving like pathogens; analogies of cures, surgery and purging naturally followed. As early as 1925 Hitler lamented the fact that the state did not have the means to "master the disease"

Hardyplants 12:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to stalking, here is what it says and I would like you to show me were this applies?


Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.

Hardyplants 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is "disruption". I guess you would have to trust me when I say that The God Delusion article is watched very closely from many points of view and if my edit 4 days ago was dubious then it would have been stamped on quickly. It wasn't. I'm hoping it was due to having "innocuous" in the same sentence as medical (innocuous...inoculate ...yup it is bad) but it may be just because people haven't worked out to even bother leaving that ref in at all.
We have an issue with State atheism where you are interpreting a source one way and I another. This is our right but for you to cherry-pick one of my edits from 4 days ago on another separate and reasonably busy article and revert just that one edit with a edit summary referring to reading sources I feel matches the definition of "disruption". You are also now starting a revert war on The God Delusion as you have reverted what another editor has done to your edit - that to others would match the definition of disruption. I'm happy that you look at my edits and there is no problems in WP:STALK with that but please do it carefully as every article has nuances as to what consensus is.
Take what you want on The God Delusion to that article as I'm not editing your changes. Ttiotsw 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning on The God Delusion[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. . I have no idea what the problem is here. You are reverting my edits without regard for what I have said. I have filed a 3RR report against you and I will present my claims of disruption on stalking.

The edits in question are,

My original edit on 9th September - [3]

(1st) Your revert on 12th September 11:58 (picking out just my one edit out of the many that had been done between the 9th and 12th) - This I claim matches the definition of disruption in WP:STALK [4]
(2nd) Your revert of another editors edits on 12th Sept 15:33 [5]
(3rd) Your edit 13th Sep 04:23 [6]
(4th) Your edit here 13th Sep 05:11 reverting large amounts [7]
which you then self-reverted, [8]
My 2nd edit here 13th Sep 05:44 to remove text that does not appear in the sources, [9]. I reworded my edit from the 9th to see if that could fit better.
(5th)Your edit here 13th Sept 05:51 simply reverting my edit [10] Ttiotsw 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Your would be nice if you stopped the harassment thought. Hardyplants 08:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that if you revert the page again, I will block you. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much for the attention you have given to this article. I'll soon make some other changes.

  • Better define where inflorescences grow.
  • Bracts: some call any leaf in an inflorescence a bract, some other may call them leaves sometimes (see bract). The whole article was written considering any leaf associated to a flower a bract. Once it is explained, your changes on the 'Bracts' session become confusing IMHO
  • Metatopy and cone probably don't really belong here.
  • I appreciated very much the nomeclatural ads (involucel, rachis, ray, umbellet...)

Please, have a look at the talk page! Aelwyn 14:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent AIV[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. This user only vandalized once this month. --wL<speak·check> 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure.. Ok, they have been blocked three times already and have history of more than 50 edits, that are only vandalism. Hardyplants 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In my experience it was unusual to get a registered user blocked and well-nigh impossible to get an IP blocked, so I gave up reporting to AIV; there are better uses for my limited time on Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The God Delusion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 10:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So you really think the author of a book is a valid source for the number of books he has sold, especially when there is not other documentation for that number?.......standards have really come down on wikipedia if this is a valid source for this claim. When the book sells that many copies there will be valid sources stating that fact, not a sales promo on the books web-blog. Hardyplants 10:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Contributions 16:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Information.svg Thank you for making a report about (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. The IP you reported was last warned more than two days ago, on 12 September, so those final warnings are considered expired, especially for a school IP like Some other misbehaving student is probably using that IP rather than the one who got warned. Warnings on shared IPs are usually good for about 48 hours when an administrator is deciding whether to block or not because we must consider that address as probably having a different user at different times and also how well the owner polices the public terminal being used. By the way, I warned the new misbehaving student. Jesse Viviano 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok- sounds good- It was hard to tell if it was a "school" but all there edits seem to be childish vandalism and playing around. Thanks for the note. Hardyplants 09:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If you run the WHOIS on the IP from the RIPE Network Coordination Centre, you will find the name of a school in the WHOIS report. Usually, I run ARIN's WHOIS, which will point me to the correct regional IP registry if it is not an American nor Canadian IP. It told me that this IP belonged to the RIPE Network Coordination Centre, so I ran the WHOIS at the RIPE NCC, which told me that this is a school. If you noticed the links at the bottom of an IP's talk page, there are hyperlinks to each regional IP registry's WHOIS. Jesse Viviano 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Permian–Triassic extinction event[edit]

I really appreciate the help you're giving to the article. Please use WP:CITET standards for references. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Plant Sexuality[edit]

Hi HP - re:

  • Subdioecious, a tendency many species of monoecious conifers show towards dioecy (that is, a female plant may sometimes produce small numbers of male cones or vice versa)[2].

The above text does not make any sense, think about it for while. If the normal condition of the species is to produce plants with separate sexs (male and female plants) then they are dioecious NOT monoecious.Hardyplants 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

- the normal condition in the genus concerned (Pinus) is monoecious, with individuals producing (very roughly) 50:50 male and female cones; in subdioecious species (e.g. Pinus johannis), typically one individual will produce something like 90% male, and 10% female cones, with another individual vice-versa. They are not fully dioecious.

As an aside, it is doubtful whether there are any wholly 100% dioecious conifers; although many come close, it usually isn't too difficult to find individuals which don't conform to the standard for the species. For an example, Araucaria araucana is typically described as dioecious, but here is a monoecious individual with seed cones (green, round) and a pollen cone (brown, slender).

Hope this helps! - MPF 23:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

yes- thats why i removed the part about conifers from the text- so that we can stick with the normal definition of the term.Hardyplants 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for all the work you've been doing on the Seed article. I've noticed the section on "Seed dormancy" is growing rather long. Have you considered condensing that to a summary, and transferring the full text to a new article on Seed dormancy (currently a redirect), or using the existing articles on Seed hibernation and Germination? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As time permits I will move most of it to Seed dormancy, and then I can add more info that I tried to keep out to limit its size. A summery sounds good for the main seed page since most of the other sections are small any way. Seed germination should have its own page too and maybe seed dispersion, I have enough material to make both larger than the main seed page as it exists now. Hardyplants 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I've merged the content of the article to Asteraceae#Fruit and seed. I haven't asked because I think I'd have got no answer and the merger looked quite obvious. Let me know if it is a problem to you (almost only editor of that page). Bye! Aelwyn 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that, I am hoping to add pictures covering a wide range of the different types of Cypsela, maybe late winter. Hardyplants 05:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If the amount of info will be satisfactory for an article of its own, please move the content from Asteraceae back to cypsela (more template?). Bye! Aelwyn 09:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Please see discussion in the Roundup talk section. --Zeamays 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

James D. Watson[edit]

Hardyplants, thanks for the additional reference. There's no problem with the edit, per se, but the place for it is the Controversial Statements section, where that's being treated. The "Positions" section is pretty much a curriculum vitae. I've moved your reference to the CS section; there was no need to add the text, because that section already covers it. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Japanese citrus[edit]

There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input in view of your contributions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion[edit]

could you point out the statements that you believe are not referenced. I believe essentially all the main points are referenced. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Hardyplants, in an edit on December 4, User:Isoptera added information about glaze ice storms, giving what seems to be a web page created by him as source. This page starts with I propose that the north temperate deciduous forest is delineated by the glaze ice area. Where these forests extend out side of the glaze ice zone in the south it is because of uprooting on swamp and flood plain soils. There is a discussion of evolution implications. Since you have edited the article before and seems to knowledgeable about the subject (quite contrary to me ;-)), can you confirm if this is according to the current state of science and not original research? Thanks for your help, --S.K. (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be just speculation and does not belong. I can think of a number of problems with the theory- but most importantly there is no supporting sources for the specific statement that these type of forests are directly correlated to glaze ice zones (there are papers on glaze ice damage;jsessionid=c2hb33iqo2s6h.alexandra?database=1&title=glaze%20ice. ) I am very busy right now and have not spent to much time on Wikpedia lately, so have not kept up with changes. I think your right that its a NOR problem. 10:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you're reply. I'll remove the statement, citing this discussion. --S.K. (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindly requesting your insight[edit]

Hi, Hardyplants! User:Rkitko suggested that your knowledge might be of benefit re: the discussion on Talk:Larval food plants of Lepidoptera. The issue is capitalization of genus names of plants, and making a list of links grammatically correct. Any help or insight you could provide would be much appreciated. Thanks! (note: I've also posted this issue to the WP:PLANTS talk page.) Cheers, Storkk (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the talk page! I'll see if I can use it to figure out at least some of the rest. One last question re: Heather. I hope it makes sense: The linked page refers only to Calluna vulgaris. In your opinion, and weighing consistency (internal and external) vs. expediency, how do you think it should be linked? Note that there are already a few that link to, for example "strawberry plants", "pear trees" (but IMHO, this was because using the fruit name might cause confusion)... so would "heather plants" work? Would "true heathers" be better? I'm trying to use common names wherever they are ambiguous and unique... but would "Calluna" be best? I know this will probably be nothing but a guesstimate, but yours is still more informed than mine. Cheers, and thanks again! Storkk (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Paeonia peregrina[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Paeonia peregrina, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Georgette2 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the article in question[edit]

Thanks, I will read the article in question tomorrow when I get access to the journal. I apologize for acting hastily as it looked to me like you were referencing the Annals of Emerging Medicine (which is actually a self-published fringe journal that is only available in hardcopy form) rather than the Annals of Emergency Medicine. That's what happens when I deal with too many things in one day and am not careful. Sorry! 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem - Man oh man, they do have very similar titles and I can easily see how they are confusing especially in a small ref. Hardyplants (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Shot info (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Go to the local university library, check out a print of De Religio, they should have it, it is in the second half after the treatise on Jesus' youth. -- (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question here[edit]

We did make a positive contribution. We removed all of the fringe theory references, unreliable sources and original research. You can thank us all for taking our time out of our busy schedules to help out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will remember how this is done, I was under the mistaken impression that we were to build on the premises of NPOV and inclusiveness. Hardyplants (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, HardyPlants, you're just getting collateral flak from an ongoing bloody war in Homeopathy, and you fared quite well! Thank you for your references, here! Friarslantern (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hardyplants, you must be reading a different NPOV than I am. Not ALL theories must be presented. Just the one's that are verifiable with reliable sources. So once again, you can thank us for our help. And Friarslantern...oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is were you lose me, I think you or I are confusing verifiable with true, My understanding is that it does not have to be "true" but that some people make the claim or have such and such use for this. So if "X says it is used for y", we have to show that this statement is true, not that x really does what the statement says. Hardyplants (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And you'd be wrong. Undue weight issues and all. If one Homeopath uses it, that's just not notable. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a different kettle of fish, so how many would have to say "X does y" or how notable would that one person have to be before it could be included? Hardyplants (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't let them wear you down. CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Here are a couple of sources that can be cited for the use of various plant species in homeopathy: the Natural History Museum's Plants and fungi used in homeopathy database and the book Plant Names in Homeopathy. Both were produced by professional botanists. I suspect the anti-homeopathy editors will still delete the references, but if so it will just prove that they will not accept any source as mainstream or reliable. MrDarwin (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that this is a personal attack on those of us who support the NPOV of all articles, and do not appreciate violations of NPOV that include giving undue weight to fringe theories such as Creationism and Homeopathy, both of which are pseudoscience. Providing any reference that states what is used in homeopathy is neither notable or neutral POV. Essentially, whatever the source, unless it clearly states that the plant, used in a homeopathic treatment cures whatever, it is giving undue weight to a discredited therapy. Furthermore, unless it's a plant like St. John's wort that has a notable use (though discredited too, if you really read the references), most of the plants I've been reading here on Wikipedia don't deserve a mention. If it is notable, which is a subjective call, it should clearly state that the there is no evidence that the plant has any medicinal effect when used in homeopathy. Which they don't, since homeopathy doesn't work. If I might be so bold, most of you guys who edit these plant articles should read the homeopathy article--it is scientifically impossible. It's no different than Creationism. I know Hardyplants is not a creationist because he edits some very nice articles, and has helped me on a couple of articles, one that went to FA status. Given what we know about the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, we would not give weight to a theory that the event happened 6700 years ago in a massive flood, even though it is published 4000 times by creationists. Same thing with these plant articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


No, we can't make medical recommendations — but we can and should report the positions of health authorities (such as the EMEA) as long as we properly source them. Feezo (Talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they need to be worded so they do not read like medical advice. I have no problem with the info - just state it in a way that does not seem like directions for use. Hardyplants (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian terrorism[edit]

Can you please stop removing reliably sourced content. I asked for an independent opinion on WP:RSN and got:

Following this, everything in the article in correctly attributed, and every point of view is cited to a reliable source. You may not personally agree with it, fine, but that does not mean you can remove massive amounts of expert reliably sourced content as you wish.

The article has now been brought into line with Islamic terrorism - same inclusion policies, same lead paragraphs etc. thus making Wikipedia more neutral. Wikipedia must be neutral on this issue - we cannot favour Christianity over Islam. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The source[edit]

Well the same Internet site is listed in the other links in that page too. But I try to work on for better references.ASEOR2 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Yakubher-Jacob mentioned as well as their exodus, which is similar to the moses exodus theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ASEOR2 gets all the content he has been adding from this source. He is simply on a POV-pushing campaign to put the unfounded theories from this video into articles. There is nothing else going on here. You once threatened to block him for disruptive editing. The disruptive editing continues, all he did was blank his talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
that is a lie, yes I've seen part the document but I don't believe any such claims made in the horrid film altogether. There is reference for the edits I've made. I haven't never used nor never will any youtubevideos as a source. ASEOR2 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just watch the video. Every setnence ASEOR2 has added to a Wikipedia article today nat least comes from this video. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ASEOR2 your edits violate a number of principles at Wikipedia, your misuse of sources only compounds the problem. Blanking your user page is a problem too, I hope you read all the pertinent documents the templates linked to, but since you are insistent on adding your text and sources, I conclude that you did not or you think they do not apply to you. The text on Jacob is clearly SYNTH, your source says their names have the same root meaning, and from this you indicated they are the same person!!! Hardyplants (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: ASEOR2[edit]

Thanks for letting me know, I have blocked the sockpuppet account. TigerShark (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pew study on percentage of American society that's Christian is original research?[edit]

How so? Llor N' Kcor (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The way you are using the study is, you are making up your own novel conclusion from the information, you need to find a reliable source that makes the statements that you want inserted, you can't make up your own conclusion about what the study might mean. I would suggest that you read the Wikipedia policies covering this area. Hardyplants (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly was my novel conclusion? Llor N' Kcor (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"and the vast majority of members of the United States government" is a minor one, "Despite the fact" is a blatant one. Hardyplants (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not say "citation needed" for the first one? As for the second one, a Pew study isn't good enough for it to be a fact in spite of which their claims are made? Llor N' Kcor (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy[edit]

Would you be able to tell me why my contribution to this article was deleted? All the sources are more than reliable (obtained from reputable sources online and from my libraries database). Please advise. --Amberhenderson63 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The first part was just wrong, take a look at more informed sources and its clear that the the connection between vaccine and autism is not confirmed or even hinted at by any studies. This case was a fluke and balanced news paper articles said as much. The second part of your addition gave undue weight to a very small group of misguided parents and the reference needed a subscription - If you find a better source and word the addition so that its clear that this is a very fringe idea, I will let others that keep an eye on that page deal with it. Hardyplants (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Baneberry[edit]

Unless you are an expert in human physiology, please do not remove the poison warnings again from the references. ingestion of this plant can be fatal. (cut cardiac info- can't find any source that lists this.) -- go buy the book (Edible and Medicinal plants of the West, Tilford). You can also find detailed information in the Merck Index on extracts made from this plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]You need to find valid sources for this information, I looked over more than 25 different sources and found nothing that includes the information you inserted, I suggest that you read the 7 references I included with the article that document the information in the article. Hardyplants (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see I am dealing with a child. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Name calling is not going to help accomplish any thing. Can you supply any corroborating references? I looked at the type of books you source produces and it does not instill confidence in me that he is a reliable source in this field, if what is attributed to him is correct. If you can supply sources that support his statements then we can work from there. Hardyplants (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not think dialouge will be helpful on this topic. It's obvious you are not an expert in this area. In addition to being completely familiar with the subject matter and a wealth of references as well, I have hands on experience with all of these plants, in the lab and out of the lab. ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is easy - all you have to do is supple some references....I have used eight already and I am still waiting for some from you. I have no problem with what ever the valid sources say and would be happy to incorporate what ever is confirmed in the article. Hardyplants (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. The materials listed all come from the cited source. I have worked with this plant and it grows nearby, and I harvest the roots for herbal medicines. The berries are quite toxic -- at least the varieties in our area certainly are. This plant -- Veratrum -- is far more interesting and grows nearby as well -- they are asleep at present -- but waking up soon. There were several plants in North America used as arrow poisons, and Red baneberry (white baneberry also) was one of them. Very dangerous to have in a garden I would think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above your source seems lacking, and should be backed up by valid science based sources. The plants are grown in many gardens and it is common in the wild, so no need to go on your assumption that it is "very" dangerous, as the published data does not support this observation.

Its has toxic properties, yes - like a large number of plants but it is not in the class of belladonna or hemlock or yew The plants should not be eaten, though they do not tasty very good. Hardyplants (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh ...) You are simply wrong about that. You are more than welcome to test your own theories by eating a large number of these berries. You can email me before you do and I will make certain someone is there with atropine, potassium permanganate, procardia, and andrenaline to get you heart started back up again -- if you really want to test your theories. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that I know at least two people that have eaten the berries by mistake, they do not have an enjoyable taste and cased some mild stomach discomfort, but this is original research and has no place in wikipedia. What caused more harm than the actual eating of the fruits was the news that they had eaten "snake berries" when they asked about the bright red berries in the woods - no one likes to be told they have eaten poison!. Hardyplants (talk)

OK, this is on par with the reality of the situation here. Red baneberry will cause cardiac problems with children and people with existing cardiac issues. You have to eat a lot of them too -- about 30-40 -- but they will cause your heart to slow down and in a small child or someone with a pacemaker or other problems they can be very dangerous. And despite your sources, there have been folks admitted into hospitals for eating them, but the affects wear off in 4-8 hours with no permanent damage. If you eat enough of them, they can really mess you up, and the White Banenerry and European species is very toxic compared to the red ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Also, you may want to check the image in the main article, it does not appear to be a Polygonum. It appears to be from the Genus Heliotropium. Now how on earth did that happen?

Lots of weird things happen around here, I will look at - but I am not that informed about these two groups of plants. Thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian terrorism[edit]

Greetings. Help me understand how and why you see this article as an "unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources." With so many references and relatively few {{cn}}, I am having trouble understanding the need for that tag. --Kukini háblame aquí 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read threw the talk page yet? Hardyplants (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have read through the talk page and still feel that this tag is excessive and inappropriate. --Kukini háblame aquí 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


The second paragraph seems unreadable to a layman like me; i'm not an expert on the subject, so i thought i'd ask if you'd be able to rewrite it? thanks. Ironholds (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the second paragraph is just an overview of the taxonomic placement of the family in relation to other groups - most of it is "speculation" or more properly stated a proposed tree. It could be cut if the page was longer than a stub- but I do not think the page is going to increase in size any time soon, its meaningful information for those that study plants in groups higher than families, but for the rest of us, it appears un-useful because its context is unknown. I have the same problem when I read many of the math article on wikipedia. Hardyplants (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. That has Pentaphylacaceae in Ericales. It also has it as having swallowed Ternstroemiaceae, which in Wikipedia is redirected to Theaceae. The Geuten et al paper there cited isn't really helpful; the sampling is thin, and Pentaphylacaceae is represented by Sladenia, elsewhere Sladeniaceae. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, I have not a clue what these plants are - never heard of them before converting a red link. When I have some more time I will take a look and see if I can find the paper, if it's swallowed Ternstroemiaceae I would assume it has more than one species now - making my text in error. I have tinkered with the Pentaphylacaeae page a little but not really changed anything, my knowledge base on taxonimy at the family level and higher is weak and very dated, my main intrests are at the species level and populations and forms, especialy for plants from northern temperate regions, I have no context in relation to these tropical families. Hardyplants (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just checked APG II. That has it in Ericales, with Sladeniaceae and Ternstroemiaceae as optional segregates. It doesn't seem to me that there's any real problems about its placement - all the classifications you give have it around the Theaceae/Ternstroemiaceae nexus, so unless APG I has any reason for leaving it unplaced, other than a failure to sample it ... Lavateraguy (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Baldur Schirach - quotation - poem about Christ[edit]

What do you mean - "still not referenced?" Following the provided link you can download Schirach's book - the page number is provided, so you can browse there and read it - and that's not supposed to be a reference?! What would consitute a reference in your opinion?!
Regards, (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Of course it's in German so I translated it - rhymes and metrics are lost but semantics count, right?

Your translation is original research and can't be used, none German speakers can not check the reference and see what the context of, or the accuracy of the translation is. For more information see wikipedias guidelines for "no original research" There should be some of his poems already translated into English by scholars already-finding one of them with a reference would be OK. Hardyplants (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Glad I could be of assistance. Let me know if you have need for other basic admin actions. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Heyas! No problem with removing the picture. Its just that here folks say that that image is of that species. I'm just puting that pic wherever ya'lls tell me to put it. :) Qb | your 2 cents 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not always easy to ID a plant with out having the thing right in front of you- In this case the ID was wrong, Most likely the geranium is a form called enrendsii( spelling is off), but its not Geranium maculatum, compare the shape of the petals and the placement of the stamens at the center of the flower, another way to tell would be to look at the roots or the seeds or even the shape of the leaves but we can't do that with this picture. Thats why I believe its important to ONLY include pictures under the species that are 100 percent confirmed. You have produced some very nice pictures of flowers and I complement you on there quality. I will add some more info to those that I can. Hardyplants (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I knew that there was something amiss when I saw the picture in the infobox, and then mine... but at the same time I didnt want to second guess those who knew much more than I. Thanks so much for the compliment on my pictures! ;) Qb | your 2 cents 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

This strikes me as an utterly inappropriate warning; the user is misguided, not malicious. What we have here is somebody eager to edit -- we can take the opportunity to turn them into a diligent contributor who helps out, or we can slap them in the face so that they never come back. Which would you prefer? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Which edit do you find misguided - they are all vandalisms. Hardyplants (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to add a welcoming message to his page - then do so, can't do any harm.Hardyplants (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The edits are problematic, yes, but there's a difference in mindset between a new user who writes "My dog is really cute! I love my dog!" on a page or two, and a sockpuppet who comes by and blanks ten userpages with nasty images. In the latter case, the user is obviously up to no good and should just be blocked and done with. In the former case, we have somebody who's eager and curious; they think the site is cool, they want to edit and probably want to learn more, but chances are they're just at a loss as to where they should begin. We have a wonderful chance to point this sort of person in the right direction, instead of slamming down a sledgehammer block warning that'll probably scare them away from contributing to a project that's filled with such hostile people. First impressions and early interactions are very important for newcomers; thanks to you, this user's first experience with a Wikipedian was very abrasive and rude. How do you suppose their opinion of the project has changed in the past twenty minutes? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"We have a wonderful chance to point this sort of person in the right direction" you really think a person that makes these types of comments "PANSYS ARE NOT JUST FLOWERS THEIR FAGS!" and "Hardcoreis when something is fucking amazing dude. Like "Highway to Hell is the most hardcore song EVER" has a good probability of becoming a constructive contributer? Hardyplants (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Stranger things have happened, yes. By the same token, do you really think that someone who describes pugs as "cute" is an imminent danger to the site that requires an immediate assumption of bad faith, including a bolded demand they stop editing altogether or be blocked? We can afford to revert a few bad edits, that's cheap, but people are an essential resource we can't afford to toss aside in such a cavalier manner. If your first encounter with a Wikipedian had been so negative, would you have stuck around? Would you have contributed all that you have? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I appreciate that you were willing to discuss this with me, and I hope you'll bear our exchange in mind, should a similar circumstance come up in the future. I'd planned on easing up after another post or two, but it seems you've gone offline or gotten tired of the thread. My goal here is absolutely not to scare you off from reverting or warning vandals (I could take some of my own advice, perhaps), but just to try and get you looking at things from a slightly different perspective. Either way, thanks for your time, and thanks for engaging me. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Luna, you are the one who is "utterly misguided", both for characterising Hardyplants' warning as "utterly inappropriate", and for your total mis-characterisation of the vandal's actions, even to the extent of setting up straw-man arguments by quoting edits that didn't even occur (i.e. "My dog is really cute! I love my dog!") rather than discussing the the edits that actually did occur. Hardyplants is right: a lot of good editors leave Wikipedia, and the ones that remain often spent most of their time reverting vandalism and arguing with admins like you who have a ridiculously soft attitude to vandalism (and I'm not talking about coming down hard on someone who is just having a bit of fun by inserting some humour, for example, and who goes one to make good edits.) In any case, how can you seriously think that someone who writes "PANSYS ARE NOT JUST FLOWERS THEIR FAGS!" is ever going to become a constructive editor even if they tried. You would have a slightly stronger argument if the vandal had written "PANSYSPANSIES ARE NOT JUST FLOWERS, THEIRTHEY'RE FAGS!" -- David from Downunder (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, as for your comment re Hardyplants' "immediate assumption of bad faith, including a bolded demand they stop editing altogether or be blocked" (a) assumption of bad faith here was entirely justified; (b) the demand was not bolded; (c) yes, the block warning was completely justified: Hardyplants didn't use a "final warning" notice. -- David from Downunder (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to continue this line of discussion elsewhere, unless Hardy wants it here. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For excellent cleanup work on Christian terrorism. Groupthink (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I assume the warning you put on my talk page is due to haste? I was just reverting vandalism. =P Skyezx (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it happened because of a connection hic-up on my end... I removed the tag and I apologize. Hardyplants (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries. =) Skyezx (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume this is a mistake made by Huggle? It's no problem anyway. Cheers, EJF (huggle) (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes...I see its happened to you again and you got another warning for fixing both cases it looks like the warning should have gone to the IP but your change came just before the warning was sent- I think to many are using huggle now and there are delays in the view of page changes. Hardyplants (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PITA or cute dimple in the nether regions[edit]

It is a pain in the ass -- on the other hand, it is kind of nice and really cool to me to have plant people in the history of these articles since I messed with them. Thank you. -- carol (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Grace O'Malley[edit]

Gráinne Umhaill does _not_ mean 'Grace of the Umhalls'. It's just a variation of Gráinne Ui Mháille, or Gráinne, descendant of Maille. Beastiepaws (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be so, but see and for the use of the phase and note the blurb in last on "It is far more likely, however, that the name ‘Granuaile’is a corrupt amalgam of the Gaelic Grainne Ui (Ni)

Mhaille or Grainne Umhaill (Grace of the Umhalls)." The page needs sources and we have some for the use of "Grace of the Umhalls" Hardyplants (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


I am familiar. Very well, either way it seems you should read more sources on the subject then Jung Chang. You would then realize that even some of the most Anti Mao historians see her work as more of a story then history. I am not holding that against you actually. Jung Changs book was heralded by the press. Only problem is, the press is not composed of historians. However, I will work on the sources for this, indeed. (Majin Takeru (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

There is more than Chang and they all seem to agree, note sources used:
  • Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Untold Story (Jonathan Cape, 2005) Page 3.
  • policy autumn 06_Edit5.indd
  • Teiwes, Frederick C., and Warren Sun. 1999. 'China's road to disaster: Mao, central politicians, and provincial leaders in the unfolding of the great leap forward, 1955-1959. Contemporary China papers. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. pp 52-55.
  • MacFarquhar, Roderick. 1974. The origins of the Cultural Revolution. London: Published for Royal Institute of International Affairs, East Asian Institute of Columbia University and Research Institute on Communist Affairs of Columbia by Oxford University Press. p 4.
  • White, Matthew. Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm (November 2005). If you want to make an argument against one of the sources, please supply some sources of your own, I need more than opinion to evaluate the issue. Also note that the page on Maoism had around 20 different references from varied works and opinion's of the subject, All but one or two were supplied by me, if the two or three people bent on not having any thing objective said about Mao, spent some time providing valid sources, the article could have become encyclopedic. Hardyplants (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the great leap forward wasn't a disaster. You are missing the point, and no, no historian agrees with damn near any of Changs writings. One, your just talking about the great leap forward and the "TOTAL DEATH NUMBER, GASP", two, you listing sources, maybe you should learn sources as well. None of those books are going to say "Everything Mao did is a direct representation of Maoist theory". Whats your point? I love when this turns into a debate that did not exist a minute before. A lot of people died while Mao was in power, we get it, everyone knows. We are debating about what is and is not theory, not if the great leap and Mao's policy was a disaster or not, though last time I checked, when Mao died majority of Chinese were much much better of in literacy, GDP, and living standards, but like I said, thats another argument. (Majin Takeru (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

I would only raise two points about your post and i will set the other issues aside so this does not become long and drawn out:
  • You still have not given me any sources that I can check that support your arguments, I am becomeing inclined to dismiss them an arguments from a biased ideolog.
  • What IS Maoist theory then? what effects did it have on the Chinese people, since no one can come up any meaningful explanation? Hardyplants (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have not given you sources? On what? Historians and other disagreeing with Chang? Go look for Philip Short (Mao: A life) and Li Zhishi (The Private life of Chairman Mao, this account differs greatly from Chang's, and this man was actually there next to Mao, not out thumping people with little red books) there is two easy ones. Speaking of little red books, lets go to sources for Maoism, Quotations of Chairman Mao (AKA the little red book) would be a damn good start on Maoist Theory. Or you could read Maos On Guerilla Warfare. Next you can check writings of other prominent Maoists, such as Prachanda, leader of the Communist Party of Nepal. These aren't subjects and sources anyone who seriously studies modern China or Mao, or Maoism needs to look for or ask for. Since you are debating it, excuse me for assuming you know a little more about the subjects. (Majin Takeru (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

From Philip Short:

In this context, I have been struck by how many reviewers have latched on to my brief comparison between Mao, Stalin and Hitler. On a point of fact, I must disagree with Dr Richardson that Stalin's famines were unintended: the famines resulting from the expropriation of the kulaks, carried out by the Komsomol and by Red Army troops, were politically engineered – not only in the Ukraine, where the death toll was highest, but also elsewhere. In this case, no less than in the Great Purge, Stalin deliberately set out to liquidate a section of society he regarded as untrustworthy. That was not Mao's purpose in the Great Leap Forward. It is true that he made matters far worse by digging in his heels after Peng Dehuai spoke in 1959. But his responsibility was not the same as Stalin's.


I do not devote much space to Mao's economic ideas, because, by his own admission, he simply did not understand economics. His writings on the subject in the late 1940s are pedestrian; his interventions in the 1950s disastrous;

from in response to a critical reveiw of his book. The details do not seem to differ much. Hardyplants (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Short's Mao emerges as a vengeful, manipulative tyrant, increasingly delusional, disarmingly self-critical at times but asplike in striking down those posing a threat to his power, whose detachment from reality had reached alarming proportions as early as 1957.


In the case of Spence and Short, their conclusions seem uneasily close to the Chinese Communist Party's own verdict, delivered in 1981, in which Mao was deemed to have committed gross mistakes ... Westerners, free to reach their own conclusions, may make their own judgments. For now, that is a liberty the Chinese people, still laboring under the weight of the Communist system that Mao bequeathed, do not share.

form a review by John F. Burns, find it at

Ah nice, The first paragraph you have the source for Short saying that Mao is nothing like Stalin or Hitler. Thats a good counter to Chang, good job. Also what are you proving? That you know the sources and you play dumb when trying to edit and ask for the same sources? I don't get it. Either way, theory and practice are two different things. I don't really see a point in continuing this. (Majin Takeru (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

User talk:‎[edit]

WP:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. I am positive that users and anon. users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page, especially when it is the same person who the commments were addressed to. (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

not warnings and blocks, once that user becomes a productive contributer and shows a history of positive involvement in the community, then the removal of warnings will not be an issue, talk pages are for the community not the users own playground. Hardyplants (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The user page has been protected, in an intact state, by an admin. I wonder why you would remove another users comments and warnings, when they could have done it them self? Hardyplants (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Another editor was reverting's edits then there was discussion about this to the effect of 'let them muck about their own talkpage'. I provided the version that had the necessary minimum templates and messages, they would not be too competent (they left less than minimum or blanked before). This user had given up in frustration, I was helping out with doing what needed to be done. (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you were being helpful...that is good. How does that saying go..."No good deed goes unpunished." or "doing the right think is a thankless job" Hardyplants (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


There is an active discussion going on at Talk:Origin of religion. I would suggest you take a look before there before considering your reversions. Cheers. Mr. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

there is no "active discussion", just block evasion by a banned user. --dab (𒁳) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of quote[edit]

Here you reverted a passage as a copyright violation, but the passage was in quotes (admittedly the single-quote style preferred in Commonwealth English). I'm not sure you were aware that it was quoted. The passage was short enough to pass muster under US Fair Use laws. I'm not convinced that it was a useful addition, and it could have been rewritten, but it wasn't a copyvio.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not see that the text had quotes, I still would have reverted but for a different reason then. I think the info is useful but needs to be summarized. Thanks for letting me know- I will try to pay more attention next time. Hardyplants (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I added a welcome message to the talk page of the contributer and asked them to summarize the information and also asked them if they could locate some better sources. Hardyplants (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Milkweed-syriaca-pods.JPG[edit]


Thanks for uploading Image:Milkweed-syriaca-pods.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


What are you talking about? I tagged that article because i thought, as the tag said, that it was telling a fictional story in an in universe manner. Please assume good faith before reverting other editors posts as vandalism. ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[edit]

>>> I wasnt talking abput conspiracy theories nor wasnt I making accusations. It's just a speech he gave on a certain date. It seems to me you did the conspiracy thought and accusation. Not me. This information should be public. ASEOR2 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) serves no purpose and should be removed as a trivial intrusion into the page then. Hardyplants (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Quote:October 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Hardyplants (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

<<< Hardyplants, you are a shame to the wikipedia society and shame to the humanity.

ASEOR2 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Can you please leave a message on my talk page clarifying how my edits of "Symbiosis" constitute vandalism? I'm not sure what I did wrong & I was certainly not trying to vandalize. Thanks in advance for your feedback.Feisty.gibbon (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)feisty.gibbon

Thanks for your feedback, Hardyplants.Feisty.gibbon (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)feisty.gibbon

User:Zebra2016 ‎[edit]

Can you please warn this user to stay away from me? Thanks, all he seems to be doing is bothering me. Please see my edits and his; I tried to have a conversation with him, and he deleted my comments. So I resolved to ask him to leave me alone. He deleted that comment too. Now every time I try to remove his nonsense, he adds it back. Thank you. Gabr-el 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a note/warning on his talk page. Hopefully he will get the hint and disengage from further one-sided commentary/harassment, if not the next step is to report him for vandalism and a "timeout". Hardyplants (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warnings to User:Thelandof12[edit]

Hi; I wonder if you should slow down a bit? You just gave a level 3 warning to this editor for vandalism that he had already reverted on his own accord, and then a level 4 warning for vandalism that occurred back in February and resulted in him being blocked for 40 days. Or has something else happened that doesn't show up in his contribs? Regards, looie496 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I misread the date on the vandalism on the records page, i will remove that warning- but this account appears to be a vandalism only account. Thanks for the note and the opportunity to correct my mistake. Hardyplants (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Please study the uses of the comma. This will not do:

However, the vernacular name of a taxon, can be used for the article title, only if it is a prominent English common name for the taxon (spelling variations excepted); when it is more common (i.e. more broadly used) than the scientific name; it is unambiguous as the name of the taxon; and it is widely attested in reliable secondary sources (without its association to the scientific name) in reference to the entire taxon as commonly circumscribed.

Most seriously, but not alone, the vernacular name is the subject of the sentence, can be used is the main verb; there should be no comma between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Do we do the write up about the species on the genus page, when there is only one species in the genus? My understanding of this issue is unclear, thanks for any clarity you can help me with on this issue. Hardyplants (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is open to interpretation. Typically, both articles are combined and usually placed at the genus title for a couple of reasons, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. Extinct taxa will usually prompt the inclusion of both articles, e.g. Aldrovanda and Aldrovanda vesiculosa or Ginkgo and Ginkgo biloba. Usually if there's only one species and only ever has been one species in the genus or the taxonomy is rather simple, there won't be much to say about the genus that won't also apply to the single species, so it's best to combine them. Of course you can always do whatever you think is best! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"there won't be much to say about the genus that won't also apply to the single species" this makes sense, thank you. I will add the info about the species to the genus page when I have time and make a redirect. Hardyplants (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It's pretty intuitive when there's a need to split, but if you need more guidance or want someone else's opinion, User:Mmcknight4 had created dozens of Arecaceae monotypic genera articles (e.g. Eleiodoxa, Calospatha, etcetera). Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Aechmea maculata[edit]

I assume you're writing the article to contain that lovely image. If not, let me know, and I'll pop something up. --KP Botany (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Who isn't busy in real leaf? I'm not! Nah nah nah nah nah. Ah, so nice to be a student and get 3 weeks of vacation. What's that obnoxious new word that Americans use for take a vacation and sit on your butt and do nothing at home? --KP Botany (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Soil[edit]

I'm not sure why you thought removing information, including a cited source, from this article improved it. I've reverted your edit for now -- can you explain why you think the section you deleted should be taken out? It seems to meet all the Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion.

Jonobennett (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the edit summery? I am working on the page right now and that small bit that was poorly developed will be added back in over the next day or so with more details and refs. Hardyplants (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Soil included a link to a disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to an article. Thanks! twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Unknown23.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Unknown23.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Unknown23.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hardyplants (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not continue your edit war over Faith[edit]

If you restart your edit war to insert POV into Faith, I see a block in your immediate future. I suspect you'd do well to stick to non-controversial articles within your domain of competency, such as soil and mulch. Spotfixer (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Plain English in Rotation in living systems[edit]

You do write plain encyclopedia-worthy English well. That seems to be the issue in the above article on Faith, also. Try not to expose yourself to too many hassles by doing so, Hardy, we'd like to keep you in plants. --KP Botany (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There's beauty, too[edit]

Hardy, you produce excellent contributions to plants on Wikipedia. Keep it up.

--KP Botany (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spotfixer (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That figures ....[edit]

... that I don't notify the one plant editor who is on-line and editing. Anyway, I just started notifying interested editors, edit history down on the flora naming conventions page. Thanks for getting over there and posting right away, particularly since your viewpoint is so solid, in my opinion. --KP Botany (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure your going to get me in hot water with this...I guess some one has to take the hard line position so compromise can be reached - and we can finally get past this issue and everyone can go back to content editing. Hardyplants (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we're already part of the evil plants cabal we might as well act like we're in cahoots. Nice job editing on the wheels article, by the way. It's an important and interesting topic, but the article needs additional input, and I hope you keep editing to get it to the point of Standard English for the layman. --KP Botany (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The current wheel article editor is a little too connected to the page right now; which is understandable, when you put a lot of time and work into a project, input sometimes seems like interference. I have some ideas about structure and content flow, and found some sources. But I do not think its profitable to do much right now, hopefully he will get the article to fall into place, if not, after a while I can give it a try. Hardyplants (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right, both the author and article need a breather. --KP Botany (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


For the style lesson at Salvia longispicata. One more question, which you may have seen at User talk:Rkitko: is the specific epithet italicized when mentioned separately form the scientific name, as it is in the second sentence? Maybe because it's latin? Or not? Thanks. First Light (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is not the proper name of a group of organisms. Saliva are a great group of plants, I hope you keep making good positive contributions on them. Hardyplants (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. I plan to keeping working on salvias - it is a wonderful genus, and growing them has given me a great deal of joy over the years. Now I get to give back to them, and learn at the same time. Plus there's lots of room here for new articles, and expansion of the current ones. First Light (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

THATS HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!Cozzycovers (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


I just made a proposal here - your support is necessary, or could you propose an alternative? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello Hardyplants - Thank you for your productive editing! And not just on soil. Although the information you added to soil on US soil classification is outdated with only 10 orders (see current version), I am taken with your concise explanation of those orders that you derived from your outdated source. I am going to do some searching to see if I can find a reliable source that will allow this element of your contribution to stand the test of WP time. --Paleorthid (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, though I am making a mess of of the page right now as I try to figure out what the article should include, just putting down an outline right now and will have to rework it a few times. Plus I need a legion of copy editors to correct my syntax and grammar errors. Any sources you can point me to would be greatly appreciated, its been 20 years since I have take any classes on soils, so all my sources are very dated - and it appears that many of the online sources are dated too. Hardyplants (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a hard time opening the link you supplied, Half the document downloads and then the download stalls, I will have to try it on another computer when I get the chance. Hardyplants (talk)

Word Hunter ref[edit]

Hello I noticed this edit you made where you used a book entitled "The Complete Word Hunter" by John T. Gause (1955) as a reference. I happen to have this book and found no mention of "deciduous teeth" on the page in question (p. 456). Perhaps you were mistaken about the page number or the edition. When you get a chance please get back to me about this so we can get the reference cleared up and accurate. For the time being I do not intend to edit the reference. Thank you, Naufana : talk 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The book has an index, but anyway the page number was transposed by me - and should have been 465. I fixed the ref. Hardyplants (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I actually looked in the index and I don't know how I missed it. Perhaps it was because I thought you were referencing "deciduous teeth" but I still should have seen it. Naufana : talk 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

flower or flour?[edit]

I'm guessing you meant "flour" here and not "flower"? Guettarda (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, yes flour as in ground grain, sorry. Hardyplants (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

flowering plant[edit]

Re: its easy to find habitats where flowering plants grow and mosses do not in almost all geographical regions of the world (except those that are consistanly moist) Could you name a few? Mosses are found on the tundra, in the desert, in coniferous forests, on grasslands, at high elevation, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Petey here, in that it's not easy. The only place I can think of right off is the intertidal (Zostera and Phyllospadix are flowering plants that grow there), although I wouldn't expect to find mosses in mangrove swamps and other brackish environments except as epiphytes.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and mosses grow in epilithic sites where flowering plants don't (accepted wisdom is that soil they form enables fl pls to colonize later), so I'd call it even.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
"Mosses are found on the tundra, in the desert, in coniferous forests, on grasslands, at high elevation, etc" Mosses can be found maybe at specific locations within those regions but not universally spread-out over different clines like flowering plants. At the the crest of a fresh sand dune one can find colonizing flowering plants with in a short time, but you are not going to find mosses. I agree that mosses can live in most enviroments that flowering plants do if they have enough moisture for reproduction. As much as I know there are no mosses living in the small lake in the back yard of my parents or in my very sunny yard over a old gravel pit (no time to water, so even the grass has a hard time making it, but I have plenty of "weeds". Hardyplants (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you find mosses on sand dunes? The FNA points out that they grow there. you seem to be concerned with local abundance and evenness of distribution rather than global distribution. Whether a taxon is locally abundance does not make it more widely distrubted. There may be no mosses growing in the little lake in your parents' backyard, but htere are also no flowering plants growing in the damp soil shaded by the trees along the sidewalk outside my home. This does not bear on distribution; it is a question of microhabitat. And I suspect that a bryologist could find mosses in the sunny yard you spoje of, even if you did not spot them (but WP:NOR). For each immediate locale where there are flowering plants but not mosses, there are locales where the reverse is true. I seldom see flowering plants growing attached to bare vertical rock surfaces, or on the bark at the base of a tree trunk, or submerged in mountain streams, or on the mortar between bricks. But none of this has to do with having a "wider distribution", it is local microhabitat abundance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is some refs for the statement:[11], [12], [13] = limits its self to vascular plants- so leaves open room for mosses. And [14] this seems to be a wide spread concept, I make no claim to know that its true or not, but that its a common statement. Hardyplants (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One more general link for a goggle search using "angiosperms are by far the most diverse and widespread group of plants" [15]
Yes, most common fallacies are common. From the FNA, volume 27, p.3: "Mosses are widely distributed from pole to pole and occupy a broad range of habitats." Schofield's chapter on bryophyte ecology in Introduction to Bryology reads much as Curtis Clark's comments and mine, with additional details. There are many published errors with regard to bryophyta ecology in general textbooks. I once heard a UC Berkeley professor (who should have known better) announce in an introductory course on botany that mosses live primarily in swamps. This is flatly wrong, since less than 2% of bryophyte species live in such locations. The primary diversity of mosses (as with flowering plants) is in the tropical rainforest. And yet the swamp fallacy is perpetuated in introductory courses in many universities. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Angiosperms are by far the most diverse and widespread group of vascular plants." I think we can all agree to that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Just hold for a minute a consensus is being debated at the talk page.gorillasapiens (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, revert my edit.gorillasapiens (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

Quick Question[edit]

Hello Hardyplants, just regarding your last revert in terms of marriage, what else could you possible call a female-female relationship besides a gay marriage (which is what they were)? Would it be wrong to source all "man & woman" as heterosexual relationships or should those be removed? Let me know, no hard feelings -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The notes in the ref say specifically they were not lesbian relations ships. Gay connotes sexual attraction; they seemed to be geared tword communal property rights and calling them gay conveys the wrong meaning (as that word is generally understood). Lets stick to what the sources say - if the source and other reliable sources describe it as a "gay-marriage" then your switching the terminology would have firmer ground to stand on . Hardyplants (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point, think we should mention property rights for clarification? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just another point Hardyplants, is it wrong to call the earlier known marriges "heterosexual relationships" based on the fact that most of them were property exchanges to begin with? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
"earlier known marriges" Well, they were property exchanges only in the sense that their purpose was to produce legitimate heirs. Surveyed broadly over many cultures and over history, marriage had one main purpose, to produce the next generation and to transition cultural norms and property to later generations. What marriage means now may be a different story; because half the world lives in a time of superabundance relative to the past, the older norms and needs are often supplanted by different ones now. Hardyplants (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk in Marriage[edit]

This is where it was discussed:

Notice it wasn't my line or idea, so it is a npov -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of talk about sex, but nothing about religion. Since the intro sentence mentions two of the three basis for marriage - in only makes sense to include the third. Hardyplants (talk)
You try to take it from one extreme to the other in terms of editing, I see right through it. I don't understand it because it's coming from you, and your edits in other articles have been npov, I don't know the problem you're having with this one.

-- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.[edit]

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vitis: why more species?[edit]

I'm sorry but my english is not very good an I'm an engineer and all I know about the taxonomy depends only about my interesting... That you wrote me on the discussion of the main page vitis represents for me a piece of news! I 've ever known that I can tell that two organisms appartain to two different species only if they couldn't crossing them or their hibrids are not able to reproduce themselves. I reflected about the particoular situation of genus vitis, and I can extend my porpouses to the appletree and to other kind of plants. Now I ask: are we speaking about two different means of "specie", I about taxon and you about subspecie or rax or variety, or the current definition of specie is failed? If it's true the 2nd, are europeoids, negroids, asiatic different species of Homo? Or are "San Bernardo" and "terranova" two different species of genus Canis? I hope that you can hel me to understand theese concepts. (In italian please...)

Thank you very much --Sandro.maoret (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I can't help in Italian. Biological systems do not obey rules as uniformly as concepts in engineering. The current understanding of species is more complex than the basic idea that they (species) produce fertile offspring. It might be true for most animal species, but is not true for other life forms, with can intermix genetic material between species. This area of study in plant sciences is complex. I would sugest that you ask your question on the Italine wikipedia, they must have some editors that concentrate in biological areas, who can give you an answer or at least point you to references in Italian. Hardyplants (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sexual reproduction in plants" vs "plant sexuality"[edit]

I assume you have a citation that makes this distinction? Because I found no such source. I also point out that the article talks about sexual reproduction much more than gender, and we lack an article on sexual reproduction in plants. Abductive (reasoning) 06:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbascum thapsus stuff[edit]

Just wanted to let you know I've incorporated the information from Fl. Iber. into Verbascum thapsus (as a sort of culmination of a revision of source). It's the third paragraph under "Taxonomy", with a sentence in "Subspecies". Circéus (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


The link you just added seems to be broken. Also, is it the link you meant to add? as it (ref. 2) is the same as ref. 1. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looked funny when I check the ref section, but it was late so I did check to see if it worked and hunt down the source and complete a templet. Hardyplants (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For the alpha diversity of monocots see World Checklist of Monocotyledons Lavateraguy (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Epistles of Clement[edit]

Hi Hardyplants, I've replied on my talk page. Regards, Paul August 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Stem nodes.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Stem nodes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism accusation for edit to "Faith" Entry[edit]


original sentence: As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

edited sentence: As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."; as such, it may be considered a form of delusion.

You have removed this edit and made the accusation of vandalism; the charge is not founded and the edit is presumptuous, given that the original sentence noting that faith is a belief not resting on logic or evidence is accepted.

Perhaps you are truly "faithful" and disagree with the above assertion, but the article would be better served by allowing the assertion in good faith to be expressed, and not suppressed. If you truly disagree, the proper course is to lay out what you may think would differentiate faith from delusion.

From the wikipedia definition of vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.

The above edit does not fit this; you are out of line in removing it and flinging your accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


See: [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There still does not appear to be a reference for the information. If you can cite a refrence and add some context for the maps inclulsion then in might be useful Hardyplants (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

Could you please add a headline, author(s) and a date to your reference? It's obviously The New York Times, but at some point the link might not work and we'd like to see what the article was. Thanks.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit to human[edit]

I understand, I think, why you did that; it's about sapiens not ergaster vs neanderthalis, but if you think about it, the point was that they divided then from the, at that time, direct ancestor of ours, not from us. They couldn't have divided from us at that time because sapiens didn't exist, so if you follow me, shouldn't we clarify that a bit at that point in the article? I wouldn't want the reader to think that we sapiens go back as far ast the original neanderthals. Chrisrus (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your right, The text should be altered to read something like: " the DNA of modern humans and Neanderthals diverged 500,0000 years ago." The best way to clarify the name issue is to find good sources and then make changes to the article with references. Whichever name (which I believe is not yet resolved) is used, does not matter to me as long as it is sourced. You do not need to spend any time convincing me because I am not an active editor on that article. Hardyplants (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Full Protection[edit]

I've started a thread on the talk page of Historicity of Jesus regarding my second recent full protection of the page. Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Memorial poppies in the US?[edit]

Hi. I'm concerned about this issue because, despite what the sources say, my personal experience is that poppies are not currently distributed or worn in the US as a symbol of remembrance to veterans or war dead. I understand this was once a custom in the US, but that the practice effectively died out long ago. I was born in the 1950's and grew up in the US, but I never saw an artificial poppy of the type described until I moved to Canada in the 1990's. Since returning to the US, I have worn a Canadian-style poppy every November, but only a tiny handful of people around me have ever confessed having the slightest clue about what it meant. I do acknowledge that the 2003 World Book Dictionary (one of the sources you just added) supports the claim, but I have to question whether this information is current or accurate. The Congressional Record source refers to a resolution — H.Con.Res. 424 (108th Congress) — urging Americans to wear red poppies on Memorial Day, and this resolution was indeed passed by both houses of Congress, but I wonder if this is a sufficient source because it doesn't support the claim that Americans actually do wear poppies as urged by the resolution (which, again, as far as I can say, they do not). Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, around here stores still give them away on memorial day and they are worn by people. Hardyplants (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Also see [17] and this general Google search: [18] Hardyplants (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I wonder whether the popularity may vary from one part of the US to another. I have always lived in California (except for a few years when I lived in Ontario, Canada), and as I said, I've never seen any evidence of VFW "buddy poppies" or any other sort of American memorial poppy. If I may ask, where do you live (be as general or specific as you feel comfortable with)? Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like there are a number in California, [19] I guess you have not been around people that are associated with the practice Hardyplants (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sympathetic magic vs collusion with demons?[edit]

Hi Hardyplants I'm a little surprised by the info you added to the lead section of Magic (paranormal). I haven't read the book you cite, but it doesn't quite accord with my understanding of common scholarly views on the subject. I've left a comment regarding this at Talk:Magic (paranormal)#Sympathetic magic vs collusion with demons?. Perhaps you could give us a little clarification there? Thanks kindly, Fuzzypeg 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


I merely tried to write objectively what most scientist think about the subject, and objectively what most continents think w/out any personal POV. Please fell free to extend the body of the article, or modify my intro, but I definitely think it should stay here as a definer of modern-day thinking.--Little sawyer (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry....[edit]

...but my edit WAS constructive. At least in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beach45678 (talkcontribs) 21:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this edit constructive:

Sometimes, the grass grows into a magical land of singing [[mushroom]]s.

Hardyplants (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Appreciate your rational points very much. Does it require a hort degree to see that there are substantial differences between humans and animals? ;-) -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Reversion[edit]

I noticed that you reverted's edits as vandalism. These three edits are good faith edits, albeit incorrect. Reverting these edits is correct, but labelling them as vandalism is very bitey. Be careful which reverts you label as vandalism, otherwise you could end up scaring off potential contributors. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 319° 21' 30" NET 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the rest of that uses contributions first before you make the claim that they are "potential contributors." Hardyplants (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


I did check them all and they are definitely good faith edits. If anything. these edits come under "Unintentional misinformation" as mentioned here. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 339° 2' 0" NET 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
We are just going to have to disagree then, because they come off to me as "Sneaky vandalism." If you feel that they are misguided edits then you should add a welcome template to there user page. Hardyplants (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, it's no big deal. At least we can agree on the fact that the edits needed reverting. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 29° 30' 45" NET 01:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites[edit]

I have a few sources available which discuss the subject, admittedly in an abbreviated form, which I might post or link to on the talk page when they are completed. The ones which, well, speculate how Epiphanius got ahold of the book, where, and from whom, as well as a few which discuss the recent scholarly opinions regarding who it was who originally wrote it (there seems to be a significant number who believe it was written by the authors of the Pseudo-Clementines, not the Ebionites) might be most useful. I can try to produce them over the weekend, preferably word for word. I will also try to find any particular recent specialist academic encyclopedic entries discussing the topic. I know there are at least a few of such. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I would be grateful for the addition of more sources. Hardyplants (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There are at least three complete encyclopedic entries which can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites. There is also some information on the book in some of the articles included in the longer talk page, which is more clearly devoted to the Ebionites as a whole. I am today going to try to correct the gross POV of the article on The Jesus Dynasty, but hope to increase the number of verbatim selections from the encyclopedias sometime in the next few days. Anyway, it's a start. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring and religion pushing on Historicity of Jesus[edit]

Do not delete text without comment. You haven't made a single comment on the Talk page of the article. You have not explained your objections to the text. You have not offered an improvement. You've contributed nothing to the discussion. Under those circumstances, you are not entitled to repeatedly delete edits. I asked what the objections were to the text three days ago [20], you made no comment (nobody objected). I again proposed the text for discussion, before you deleted it---you didn't object or contribute in any way (but you deleted it).[21] I expressed concern that the wording you prefer lacks sourcing (and relevance) [22], and you haven't responded. Deleting without any attempt to work at consensus is vandalism. Your habit, like Bill the Cat's, of showing up mainly to revert is disruptive and destroys AGF. Noloop (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The owl[edit]

Can owls have red eyes, or is this just a case of camera red-eye like we see all the time in humans? Soap 18:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Different owls have varying colored eyes, but none are red that I know of. The red coloration seen is the same camera effect that happens when taking a photo of people. The light from the flash bounces off the retina and passes through the many fine blood vessels and is returned to the camera as red. Hardyplants (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


If you email was on I could send you that paper. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have another source for 10, I wonder if it was a mistake since the paper is from an Obstetrics and Gynecological nursing source. Maybe the number has changed, if so it seems it would be referenced in a current UN document. Hardyplants (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for helping an old fellow out. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John[edit]

I appreciate your help on Gospel of John. Dylan Flaherty has been reverting just about everything I do on this an other articles. Would you mind undoing his reversion so we can push towards something of a consensus? I think there are still real problems with the Gospel_of_John#Modern_critical_scholarship section and not much can be done if all edits are reverted. I have done about all I can without someone else at least ratifying the view that changes need to be made.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to revert, because it is already an edit war and nothing productive can come from this when one side blindly reverts without discussion. There needs to be additions to the article that cover other view points, this is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Hardyplants (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


I added you to the list, since you're clearly involved. Come join the fun. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How am I involved? Never edited that article and never had any plans to. Hardyplants (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The RFC is not limited to this article, but to the general pattern of edit-warring on biblical topics. For now, I'm taking a week off from articles about books of the Bible, and after the false claims made about my edits on Jericho, I think I'm going to broaden that vacation a bit. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation, but I have been sucked into the margins of that controversy much more than I wish to be already. Some time off for everyone sounds like a good idea. Hardyplants (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus 3RR[edit]

I am writing to kindly remind you of 3RR. You have made 3 reverts to the Historicity of Jesus within the last 24 hours. Please refrain from edit warring. This is a good time to brush up on what constitutes edit warring if you need a reminder (see WP:3RR), and a better time to continue working out your differences on the talk page. Take this opportunity to reflect on and hopefully change your editing habits before you wind up blocked. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Some editors are wanting to restore the skeptical POV that existed on Gospel of John. I made a comment on the talk page on this, although am going to mostly stay out of this. You seem to know a lot about this topic, so I think it would be good if you could make some more comments on the talk page so we can get an end product that isn't as skewed as it was before.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, and I hate to be nit-picky but you didn't sign your comment. I normally wouldn't mention it, but since this is a controversial issue it is good (and important) to know how many different people are commenting on it, and what their views are.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I probably failed to add the fourth, or added an extra, twiddle. Hardyplants (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


I appreciate your participation with the editing of Gospel of John. If you have a second, could you please leave your two cents over on the talk page of Jesus (the discussion on this issue is at Talk:Jesus#Disputed_vs._debated). Three of my edits were reverted (here, here and here). I think they better reflected scholarly debate on the issues, and I am wondering what you think about them and if they should be part of the article.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


I was wondering if you could look at two edits that I made here and here and tell me if you think they should have been reverted. They are pretty much the same thing, and were reverted because editors think Darrell Bock is fringe or an "apologist". I think the substance of the edits accurately reflects the nuances of scholarship on the issue.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew#Changes if you get a chance.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1 Message[edit]

If you would like to put pictures in your talk page it needs two more brackets, so if you have time please fix it.NoticeQuest Do you wanna chat? My Contributions 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediator found[edit]

User:Hipocrite has agreed to mediate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-12/History of ancient Israel and Judah. As a listed party, please indicate whether or not you will join this mediation as an active party at that page. I am informing each of you that if you do not reply there within 48 hours of your next edit, I will interpret that as disinterest in taking an active position in Biblical-authorship articles. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello. You recently added a citation to a book by Alphascript Publishing to this article. Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source as the text derives entirely from Wikipedia; this is a circular reference. See WP:ALPHASCRIPT. I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed; many other editors have also been duped by these sources.

Another source to be wary of is the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International as their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [23]). Fences&Windows 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know this, I will add them to my list of unusable sources. Hardyplants (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Trillium Hybrid[edit]

Your photograph of a hybrid Trillium is quite beautiful, but I have some doubt about its identity. Viable hybrids between T. grandiflorum and T. cernuum are, to my knowledge, unknown in the scientific literature. A hybrid (even a sterile one) between these two would be of great interest to those studying Monocot taxonomy, since these two species are phylogenetically quite distant. Yes, even within the genus. To my eye at least, the subject of your photo looks like a pretty typical T. grandiflorum. Since this photo is in articles about broader topics in evolutionary biology, I encourage you to reassess its identity. I know I often have to double (and triple!) check my own photography notes from time to time! :) For more information on these stunning wildflowers, Fred and Roberta Case's book, Trilliums is a great read, by the way. DDennisM (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with these plants, having collect both of the parents and making the cross. But I agree with you that it is a very uncommon hybrid and I would not object if you made changes to remove this oddity and added in a more common hybrid to the article. T. grandiflorum is an interesting species, showing great genetic diversity inspite of its morphological uniformity. Hardyplants (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Baldur von Schirach[edit]

Hello, I am trying to find a source for Schirach saying the he believes "The Internation Jew" was responsible for anti-sematic beliefs being spread. I have search through much text from the Nuremberg trials and found nothing mentioning Ford or "The International Jew". Please if you have a source let me know. p.s. holds no more importance than a school project. Jolly pepss (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not have that information, and do not at this time have the time to research it. Sorry. Hardyplants (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening invitation[edit]

Pieskowa Skała ogród zamkowy.jpg
Hello, Hardyplants:

Thank you for your contributions to Horticulture – or Gardening – related articles. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a WikiProject to improve horticulture and gardening articles on Wikipedia and coverage of these topics.

If you would like to participate or join, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Northamerica1000(talk) 08:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


Why are you removing well referenced information from the tree article. the statement that palms are herbs is supported by references to two universities. Why do you feel it needs to be removed without even challenging it first? Mark Marathon (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hardyplants! Just a quick note to say that I like the work you have put into tree, its really improved the article. Your name seems quite apt! Tdslk (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Captions for images[edit]

Just to note that when you add an image to an article, you should always add an informative caption. Some readers using mobile devices or slow internet connections suppress automatic loading of images and need the caption to tell whether the image is worth looking at. There's also the issue of readers with sight issues. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of article title of Whitebark pine[edit]

You are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Whitebark pine#Requested move to scientific name. —hike395 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Alice Whealey[edit]

Hi! I see you started the Alice Whealey stub a few years ago. I'm wondering how you learned of her. Yopienso (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That was a while ago, so the specific circumstances escape me, but I am sure it was because I read some of her writing or another source referenced her. Hardyplants (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Hardyplants. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Hardyplants. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Lily of the valley[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Lily of the valley—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. mettokki (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ John Cornwell The importance of doubt, The Guardian 30-Aug-2007 [24]
  2. ^ McCormick, J., & Andresen, J. W. (1963). A subdioecious population of Pinus cembroides in southeast Arizona. Ohio J. Science 63: 159-163.