User talk:Roy Bateman

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

Contents

Image copyright problem with Image:Manual sprayer.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Manual sprayer.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ultra low volume[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Ultra low volume, 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. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ultra-Low Volume[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Ultra-Low Volume, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Kkmurray (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Organic farming appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. NeilN talkcontribs 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ecological pesticides[edit]

I replied to you about the ecological pesticides merge thing somewhere, but I can't find it. Basically I want to move all the ecological pesticides into one page. From there we can separate them if necessary, but I'm not sure it will be necessary for at least a little while. Right now there's like 3 or 4 "bio" pesticide articles out there. Too messy. ImperfectlyInformed | talk - contribs 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

speedy[edit]

Pesticide formulation[edit]

A tag has been placed on Pesticide formulation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PamD (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

reply[edit]

I wasn't fast enough before - this was indeed a bit of a stub, but surely a subject like this didn't warrant deletion!

Many thanks for recent edits (23 May) - cleaned up enough yet?

rgds Roy Bateman (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got caught up in a bit of beurocracy there Roy. Don't take it personally, administrators have to deal with a lot of dubious material everyday, and a legitimate but short article can sometimes be deleted in the crossfire. Since the article has been fleshed out, it's unlikely to be deleted again. Best regards, Jefffire (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lack of common sense in Wikipedia. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

CCD, etc.[edit]

Given that there have been experiments showing symptoms similar to CCD from some neonics, there is at least a reason to not rule out pesticide effects in the CCD phenomenon. Not that pesticides cause CCD, but that pesticide effects might be confused with CCD. Of all the "alternative theories" that people have come up with, the pesticide one is about the only one that can't truly be ruled out entirely, but only for this reason - it certainly can't explain all the CCD cases from the 1970's and such, since that whole class of pesticides didn't even exist back then. But that doesn't mean they can't be playing a role now in creating problems for bees. It would be nice if someone would put this in print (that neonic poisoning could be mistaken for CCD), in which case we could remove the pesticide section from the CCD article and redirect readers elsewhere. In the meanwhile, good going with the edits. Dyanega (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:LPA Serratia.JPG[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:LPA Serratia.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 uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fungus[edit]

Hi, I've reverted your spelling changes of mould->mold in the Fungus article. The article is written using American English, and according to the WP:MOS, "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." Further, it is not acceptable to change the spelling of titles of the sources (even if not consistent with the style of English spelling used in the Wiki article). Your other changes look fine (to me), but there are other editors who watch the article that might disagree later :) Cheers, Sasata (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK Sasata - I confess that, though I have American mycologist friends I had never come across "mold" before and thought it was a mis-spelling!! I added a spelling differences phrase at the beginning for the benefit of others like me on this side of the pond. FYI I am about to do some edits to biological pesticides and set up a Lecanicillium lecanii page - can't believe it hasn't been done already - pointed out to me by confused students. Any peer review much appreciated. Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lecanicillium lecanii[edit]

Hi, I was wanting to change the first sentence in the article from:

  • Lecanicillium lecanii is now an approved name of an entomopathogenic fungus species, that was previously widely known as Verticillium lecanii (Zimmerman) Viegas), but is now understood to be an anamorphic form in the Cordyceps group of genera in the Clavicipitaceae <ref>Zare R, Gams W. (2001) A revision of ''Verticillium'' sect. ''Prostrata''. III. Generic classification. Nova Hedwigia. '''72''': 329-337</ref>. ---->
  • Lecanicillium lecanii is an entomopathogenic fungus species, that was known previous to XXXX as Verticillium lecanii (Zimmerman) Viegas), but is now understood to be an anamorphic form in the Cordyceps group of genera in the Clavicipitaceae. <ref>Zare R, Gams W. (2001) A revision of ''Verticillium'' sect. ''Prostrata''. III. Generic classification. Nova Hedwigia. '''72''': 329-337</ref>

I was wondering if you could please fill in the XXXX with the year that it got the official name change. The edit, of course, is for the purpose of reducing the recentism feel. Thanks Passionless -Talk 01:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw your edit summary, is 2001 the XXXX? Passionless -Talk 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Phytophthora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Invasive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point - have corrected it. Roy Bateman (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Integrated pest management, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK - fixed - so had to sort out definition of 'pest' as well ... Roy Bateman (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pest (organism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

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

Helopeltis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pests
Tea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pests

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beauveria bassiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isolate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rhizoctonia solani[edit]

Cite error: The named reference <ref name=""Roberts1999"" > were invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhizoctonia_solani&diff=572298893&oldid=543102361 Please fix - thanks --Frze > talk 23:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is now fixed - a good reference is: http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/C93A494B-8105-4804-9DFA-81190EC3F68B/58166/pub3123ShealthBlightofRiceHIGHRES.pdf. Thanks Roy Bateman (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chilo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acanthosaura coronata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dong Nai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acanthosaura capra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Roy Bateman. You have new messages at Sminthopsis84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lagerstroemia anisoptera[edit]

Howdy. Question about a rather old edit of yours please. In this edit, you removed Lagerstroemia anisoptera from Lagerstroemia#Selected species as part of a larger change with the edit summary " Added accepted spp. from The Plant List". The given source lists Lagerstroemia anisoptera when checked now, albeit with "Unresolved" status. I wanted to check your rational for removal; given that we have an article for Lagerstroemia anisoptera should it be on the list on Lagerstroemia? Cheers. - TB (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Hello TB. I can only think that must have been a mistake on my part (now restored) - for which I apologise. As I understand, the list is incomplete and I was keen to include all the species in [Cat Tien National Park] at the time ... it would be good to complete the list: http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Plantae/Lagerstroemia_Genus.asp was a reference I found previously. Best Roy Bateman (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 4)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Onel5969 TT me 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Roy Bateman, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 5)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Standard section order for plant articles[edit]

Hi, I appreciate your edits to Tetrameles, but there's a standard order of sections agreed for plant articles – see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template (which is a bit over-the-top in its detail, in my view). It's important to source all vernacular names, just as other information in the article. If I can help or advise with editing Wikipedia articles in any way, please leave me a note on my talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Roy Bateman. 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)

ana vs anna[edit]

Hi. I've turned 'anna' into a redirect to 'ana'. If you got it wrong, someone else looking for it might well do the same. Don't forget that if you do make a mess of a title, it's easiest to 'move' it to the proper title. This leaves a redirect automatically. If the mess is so bad no-one is likely to type it into search (baring in mind that a lotof peeple cant spel...), tag it with {{db-r3}} (recent implausible redirect) or {{db-g7}} (one author request for deletion). Moving keeps the creation history complete, which is most important when someone else has edited before you realise the mistake). For me, I'd have thought that annamensis would have been the right one (as the country used to be Annam), but both spellings seem to occur in various genera (as well as for the same species...) on Google. Peridon (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take a liberty and de-ref the floating references at the bottom of this page. The refs will still be there in the post, but they won't float. If you like them floating at the bottom, just undo my top edit in your history. Peridon (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Cycas inermis. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Roy Bateman. You have new messages at Peridon's talk page.
Message added 18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

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

Spondias pinnata
added links pointing to Vietnamese, Khmer, Petiole and Calyx
Colona evecta
added links pointing to Vietnamese and Khmer
Artocarpus rigidus
added a link pointing to William Griffiths
Entada phaseoloides
added a link pointing to Pods

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Plant geographical categories[edit]

Hello Roy Bateman, I just want to pass along some thoughts on these categories. For example with your edit here you added the category Category:Flora of Vietnam. However I think this is already covered with Category:Trees of Indo-China, of which Category:Trees of Vietnam is a subcategory. When a species is widely distributed in a region, as Xylia xylocarpa is in Indo-China, it's better to use the regional category. This saves adding a potentially long list of country categories where one regional category could suffice. If there are just a few countries, then it would be okay to list them individually. For example if the species were native only to Vietnam and Laos, then those country categories would be fine. I hope this helps a bit. Thanks Declangi (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Declangi. Indeed - I was wondering about the 'form' for categories: I have been working on the flora and fauna of Cat Tien National Park, and have set-up quite a number of new pages (and adding info. to existing ones like this). As well as categorising the taxonomy, I have tended to list these under Category:Flora of Vietnam - and should probably also included Category:Trees of Indo-China: these two sets will have mutually inclusive, but also excluded species of course. I suspect that people may look-up under "trees" or "flora", in which case, might it not be better to have both? Brgds Roy Roy Bateman (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As far having both categories (a regional category and a category for a country within a region), this is not the recommended approach for plant articles. And in general, the Wikipedia guidelines for categories are to not place an article in both a parent and child category. WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD discusses the guidelines more specifically, saying for example (paraphrasing) "...a more limited distribution best described by regional boundaries (e.g. "Flora of Northern Europe" or "Flora of the Southeastern United States"), then place it only in those regional geography categories and exclude it from child categories of those". So in this case Category:Trees of Indo-China is such a regional category, X. xylocarpa being a tree of Indo-China (and India). Declangi (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I seem pedantic, but isn't "flora" the parent of "trees"? I would be OK with Category:Flora of Indo-China I suppose ... Roy Bateman (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
These categories are a mix of what the plant is and where it is native to. For what it is, it's best to be specific as possible, so Tree is more specific than Flora. For distribution, the categories should indicate the native range, but using regional or continental categories for plants with a wide distribution. This article says "This tree is found in South and Southeast Asia", therefore Category:Trees of India and Category:Trees of Indo-China works best. If a plant is native to most countries in Africa, we would use an Africa category rather than dozens of country categories. It's really a case of what fits best for the article and avoiding WP:OVERCAT. The above category scheme, WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD, has been worked on extensively by editors at WP:PLANTS and represents current best practice. The parallel plant hierarchies like "Trees of", "Orchids of", "Grasses of", "Endemic flora of" etc. should also follow the same geographic scheme. These more specific hierarchies have the effect of mitigating very large individual categories. See Category:Flora of China for an example of what is still a very large category, but one that would be even larger without its hierarchy. Declangi (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
"WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD, has been worked on extensively by editors ..." - which appears to exclusively use the term "Flora ...". Incidentally, I set up the page List of trees of Cambodia as a page rather than a category (since there appeared to be very little PD info. on this) - what do you think? One of the problems we have here in the jungle is deciding "what constitutes a tree?": with phenomena such as mature stranglers and partially self-supporting lianas. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Your List of trees of Cambodia is a great idea and thanks for your considerable effort that went into creating it. Such list articles serve a very useful purpose of collecting information that is hard to get at by other means. A particular advantage is being able to list species (red-linked) that do not yet have an article and that hopefully would encourage interested editors to create something or translate from an other-language Wikipedia. By the way, I took the liberty of adding a couple of list categories to your article, another way for those interested to find your article. Speaking of "tree-ness", when categorising I tend to go with the description from the reference I'm using. So if the reference says "grows as a shrub or small tree" then that would go in a "Flora of" category. But "grows as a tree 15–30m tall" would go in a "Trees of" category. If in doubt, "Flora of" is just fine, lianas seem like such a case. Declangi (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cleistanthus sumatranus[edit]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Adem20talk 10:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Tân Phú (thị trấn in Đồng Nai)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Tân Phú (thị trấn in Đồng Nai), Roy Bateman!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Can you please add your sources?

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Isaria fumosorosea) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Isaria fumosorosea, Roy Bateman!

Wikipedia editor Nicnote just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for this wonderful page!

To reply, leave a comment on Nicnote's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 15:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Restoring Talk page text[edit]

Please stop reverting LittleJerry's removal of your comments from their Talk page. Editors are permitted to remove your comments and any other content from their own Talk pages, and if and when they do, you are not to restore them. See WP:OWNTALK. General Ization Talk 22:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My objective was to post explanation of a {uw-3rr} there - do I need to formally complain? Roy Bateman (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see my answer on my Talk page, where you also posted this question. General Ization Talk 23:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Roy Bateman, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Quercus asymetrica[edit]

Hi Roy; I've no strong opinion on the spelling issue, but please do not perform cut-and-paste moves. If the article is in the wrong place, use the move function. This isn't a particularly egregious case, but, in other instances, it might be. Nonetheless, I'll perform a history merge. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Josh - Apologies for using the wrong procedure - 'move' function now noted. Q. asymmetrica is the correct spelling - checked on 2 data-bases. Quercus asymetrica was actually a bit of an orphan - I came across it by chance, linked it correctly with the Cyclobalanopsis sub-genus and tried to preserve all the original information on the new page: together with additional information. Roy Bateman (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Mea culpa - I did the same with Q. camusiae (which was a synonym) - thanks User:Plantdrew for sorting out that one. Roy Bateman (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
That looks more like a merge than a copy-paste move, but we could merge histories to be on the safe side, perhaps. I saw that I'd created the page at Quercus asymetrica; judging from "what links here", I will have done that to fill a redlink in Phellinus ellipsoideus (I'm generally more interested in fungi than trees). I don't know whether that was my mistake or whether I was following a source with a misspelling; either way, I'm glad it's sorted now! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing rainforest to tropical forest[edit]

I notice that youve been systematically going through Wikipedai articles, changing every instance of the usage of rainforest or tropical rainforest to either tropical forest or true rainforest. Could you please stop. You have done this in many instances, eg Jungle and Daintree National Park, where it directly contradicts the references given for the statement. You simply can not change well referenced statments on Wikipedia. If it is supported by a reliable source, the stament has to remain. Even in cases where it doesn't directly contradict the references, in all cases doing do is corrupting the meaning of other editors. The term rainforest is well understood and commonly used by both laypeople and us ecologists. It has a specific meaning. Tropical forest has a different and less well defined meeaning. The terms are not interchangeable, yet you insist on using the interchanagably. If you think that rainforest may be the wrong term to use, and it isn't supported by the references, then by all means discuss with other editors your reasons for wanting to change. But you can not simply exchange rainforest for tropical rainforest. That likely will totally change the meaning of the text. A tropical rainforest is a specific type of non-sclerophyll, broadleaf, wet forest. In contrast tropical forest, by most definitions, encompasses dry sclerophyll forests, such as the brigalow, cypress and ecalypt forests of Australia, in addition to monsoon forests and often even savannas. As a result when you change an article so that rainforest becomes tropical forest, you are reducing clarity and accuracy. And yes, I notice that tropical forest redirects to tropical moist forest. This is something that needs to be corrected, but does not make what you are doing any more valid. The same applies to your usage of "true rainforest". Ther is no such thing as true rainforest. There are literally hundreds of vegetation classification schemes used thoughout the world, most with there own definition of rainforest. The "dry rainforest" vegetation type favoured by Australian ecologists or the "Pacific Northwest rainforest" favoured by American foresters or the "equatorial rainforest" favoured Indian vegetation scientists are every bit as much "true" rainforests as anything else. I get the impression that you think that this Global 200 scheme is the only valid scheme for classifying vegetation. It is in fact just a list of high conservation priority regions. Its not a comprehensive list of biomes, nor did the authors intend it to be. You will find there are a great many vegetation types that don't fit anywhere in that scheme. Even if it were comprehensive, that would not make it more valid then the systems used by other institutions around the world. So would you please refrain from changing every instance of the use of rainforest to some other term. Thank youMark Marathon (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No changes have been (or ever will be) made to articles that refer to sites in the true tropical rainforest climate zone, but it seems to me that many of the "rainforests" are actually "seasonal tropical forests" (for example here in Vietnam where I work): the latter are very similar to the original "jungles" of India (look-up the etymology of that word). There is a substantial body of scientific literature that contrasts the ecology of seasonal and true rainforests: which usually do not occur more than 10 deg. N and S of the equator. This is also important because it is also perhaps the zone of greatest biological diversity, with many species yet to be discovered. I am well aware that Daintree NP is referred-to as a "rainforest", but (dare I say) it seems to me that this is a misnomer. I would have thought it was a classic monsoon forest on the coast (with a strong dry season), gradually turning into more savanah-type climates inland. "Dry rainforest" almost seems like an oxymoron surely! I would dearly like to visit Daintree rainforest (for that is its name!) someday - and I did check on the climate patterns before making the change you refer-to. The fact that there are several eco-zone classifications makes it all rather confusing but I don't think we should get too hung-up on names: the important thing is to appreciate the diversity. I liked "tropical forest" because it actually forwards to Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests - which is rather a mouthful, but I think the page nicely explains, distinguishes and forwards to the various ecosystems (BTW I am NOT a great fan of and the Global 200 scheme, but understand it is widely-used). Does this make sense to you? Roy Bateman (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Where to start:


1) We are not discussing any “true tropical rainforest climate zone”, nor are the articles. The articles are discussing rainforests, regardless of which climatic zone they are in.

2) There is no “true tropical rainforest climate zone”. You have linked to one scheme, it isn’t the “true”, it’s simply one example.

3) A forest doesn’t cease to be a rainforest just because it falls outside of some climate scheme, any more than a forest becomes a rainforest simply because it falls within a rainforest climate zone. There are savannas and alpine steppe in rainforest climatic zones, just as there are rainforests in savanna or alpine climatic zones. Climatic zones, especially coarse ones such as Koppen, are blunt instruments at best.

4) You seem to think that a community must be either "rainforest" or "seasonal tropical forests". That’s simply untrue. There are literally hundreds of classification schemes and any community will inevitably fall into several of them. So your communities "are" rainforests and they "are" seasonal tropical forests, both at the same time under different scheme. It’s not a dichotomy. Kew Gardens, Nature and the Cambodian Journal of Natural History and every other major Journal in the world are quite content that the wet forests of Vietnam are rainforests. Whether they are seasonal tropical forests under some other scheme doesn’t change the fact that they are rainforests under schemes that the editors of Nature and botanists at Kew are quite comfortable with.

5) There is no such thing as a “true” rainforest. If the botanists at Kew and the editors at Nature think it’s a rainforest, it’s a rainforest as far as the world of science is concerned. Some authors may well prefer other schemes that make some other distinction. That doesn’t make the botanists at the world’s premier herbaria or the editors of the world’s most prestigious journals "wrong". What they say is “true”. That doesn’t mean that your preferred scheme is not also “true”. Once again, it’s not a dichotomy. But it does make any claims that these rainforests are not “true” somewhat unsustainable when the folks at Kew and Nature say otherwise


6) If rainforests do not occur more than 10 deg. N and S of the equator then you had better tell the people at the Royal Society of new Zealand, Journal of Zoology, Journal of Biogeography, Institute of British Geographers and Nature Conservation. Because they are all quite happy that they exist in New Zealand. Ditto for the Pacific Northwest of North Am, where, once again, the good folks at both Kew and Nature think there are rainforests.


7) You think that the Daintree Rainforest is a misnomer. Firstly Wikipedia policies don’t much care what editors think on issues of fact. If the reliable references label it a rainforest then that’s what goes in the article. Changing the article to contradict those references is vandalism, and will be reported as such if it keeps happening. The references provided said it is the oldest rainforest in the world. That’s what the article must say. You can not change it to “tropical forest” because the references do not say it’s the oldest tropical forest. And secondly, when the editors at Biological Conservation, Nature, Forest Ecology and Management, Austral Ecology and the scientists at Kew, CSIRO and the ANBG all say that the Daintree is tropical rainforest, you are on pretty shaky ground gainsaying them. When every scientific organisation in the world disagrees with you, that might be the time to reconsider your position.

8) You would have thought it was a classic monsoon forest on the coast (with a strong dry season), gradually turning into more savanah-type climates inland. You would have been simply wrong. Failure to do the research is not grounds for changing articles to misrepresent the sources on Wikipedia. I might also add that it’s not acceptable in real life science either. Reviewers and editors don’t; like people who misrepresent their sources any more than they like people who don’t do basic research, like looking at the Queensland Herbariums veg maps.

9) "Dry rainforest" may seems like an oxymoron to you, but the folks at Australian Herbaria, CSIRO, Austral Ecology and every Department of Environment and Forestry in Australia disagree with you.

10) You checked on the climate patterns before making the changes, yet you didn’t notice that the rainfall for Daintree is considerably higher in every month than, say, Manaus, in the heart of the Amazon? Do you perhaps think that the Amazon is also not a “True Rainforest”? Or are there some other figures that you are talking about? I can't think what, since soil moisture, canopy density, tree height and diversity figures all show the sme thing. You don't get 40 metre tall trees in classic monsoon forest.

Anyway, the important thing is that you please stop doing this. If a reliable source supports a statement in an article, you can’t just change the wording of the article so it says something else. That’s vandalism..Mark Marathon (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh please - not the V word! (kindly look-up what vandalism in WP means, before making accusations) - I note that you have a history of discourtesy in WP, several complaints about edit warring and a temporary ban in 2014; therefore I do not wish to spend much longer on this. Just to clarify my views:
  • If I have substantially changed any statement so that it becomes inconsistent with the references, then it is an oversight on my part, for which I apologise.
  • However, it seems to me that much of this is a matter of semantics, over which there are clearly different opinions (just as there are various systems classifying the World biomes). Debate over these matters will go on interminably I suspect, and I for one don't wished to get bogged-down with this.
  • There are of course also temperate rainforests (as in New Zealand), but many of the world's forests are subject to seasonality, which has a very significant influence on the flora and fauna present; this is the literature to which I refer. Therefore IMHO not to consider climate would be a big mistake and the Koppen classification seems to me to be a useful descriptive tool: it is indeed a "blunt instrument", but I never suggested it should be used on its own. Do you have a problem with this?
  • Your point 6 seems obtuse - that is "tropical rainforest". The notion I wished to make (possibly not very well) is that as you move to other latitudes and climate zones there are of course ecotones, which can make characterisation of a given area somewhat problematic. You effectively say this in #4 – I don't understand why you imagine I would think otherwise.
    • The point of using tropical forest is indeed that it is generic, thus mitigating some of these issues. I see that you have taken the trouble of changing this from a redirect to an explanatory page … I would be very pleased to support you with this (and will oppose speedy deletion), but only on the basis of courteous debate on how to navigate this 'lexicological minefield' (apparently).
    • You quote various institutions, but I see considerable inconsistency in the scientific literature. For example "seasonal tropical forest" is regularly used by Smithsonian Institution people to describe the forest in Barro Colorado Island. Personally, I like this term – it most usefully encompasses "monsoon forest", "mixed tropical forest" and sometimes even "rainforest" which are widely, but sometimes carelessly, used in Thailand and here in Vietnam.
  • I therefore have every intention of continuing to use the term "tropical forest" myself. I find it especially useful for describing the habitat of species such as Tetrameles nudiflora that range from southern China (subtropical) via southern Vietnam (seasonal TF) through to Malesia (true rainforest) and down to Queensland (whatever terms you wish to use!). I respectfully suggest it might also be useful in Queensland, which is not strictly in the Af zone …
Just to be totally clear, and I hope allay your fears: "Daintree rainforest" is the name of the place and neither I nor anyone else would or should wish to change this. That need not hinder accurate description and debate about what influences and actually occurs in this and adjacent places – isn't that what scientists do? I suggest that it would be better to continue this discussion on the tropical forest talk page, which (with the caveat above) I will support.Roy Bateman (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I notice that you are once again engaging in this behaviour, altering the wording and misrepresenting the sources on numerous articles, including jungle. i will revert your edits yet aga8in. Please do not engage in this behaviour again without discussing on the talk page and gaining consensus. Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Caelifera[edit]

The consensus was that grasshopper and Caelifera should be the considered the same. Either let this go or contact more people from WikiProject Insects for more opinions for a new consensus before you make these changes. If you revert my redirect before then, I will report you. LittleJerry (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC) "Grasshopper" and Caelifera are not the same: if you pretend otherwise, I would question a lot of your editing here. I have and will continue reverting until you can prove to me that a pygmy mole cricket is a grasshopper. Suggest you continue this discussion on the Caelifera or grasshopper talk page. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Caelifera[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Roy Bateman. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Onomarchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush cricket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dracontomelon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Protium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates, etc.[edit]

Hi, only in exceptional circumstances are taxonomy templates (i.e. those of the form "Template:Taxonomy/TAXON") needed for species. You use {{Speciesbox}} in the article and it picks up the taxonomy from the taxonomy template for the genus.

The system is described in full at WP:Autotaxobox system. I'm always willing to help with automated taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cholinergic crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)