User talk:Stupid girl

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

Hello Stupid girl and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Welcome. Thanks for fixing the spelling mistake. Josh Cogliati. Jrincayc 01:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chess opening[edit]

Thanks for fixing the Ruy Lopez diagram in chess opening. You would think that I might have looked at the diagrams after adding them.... Quale 14:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pelobatoidea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelobatoidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Spadefoot (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) 00:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Higher plant taxa in taxoboxes[edit]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! You're right that there's a lot of inconsistency in the use of higher taxon names in plant taxoboxes. For angiosperms, we are, I think, consistent, in going from Kingdom Plantae to Unranked Angiosperms, but for other groups we aren't. However, this just reflects the literature – there simply is no universally agreed on classification or set of clade names at present. If reliable sources are inconsistent, we mustn't try to create a synthetic consistency (this is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR in Wikipedia). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. The inconsistency I'm trying to help with is that some taxoboxes show the direct parent taxon while others don't. E.g. Flowering plant (Angiosperm) showed "Spermatophyta" but Pinophyta didn't. Both Pinophyta and Magnoliophyta (Angosperm) were listed in the subdivisions of Spermatophyta. As far as I see there is no scientific disagreement that both are Spermatophyta. I don't even have a strong opinion about which parent taxa should be shown. I do have a strong opinion that it should be handled consistently in nearly related cases. I stumbled over it because I had copied the data out of the taxoboxes into my own diagram and arrived at two different hierarchies: Archaeplastida/Streptophytina/Embryophyta/Spermatophyta/Flowering plant vs Archaeplastida/Plant/Pinophyta. Hello? The flowering plants are no plants, and on what level are they related to the Pinophyta? You could go down from Plantae to Angiosperm but if you tried to go up, you missed the Plantae. I added the Plant to the Streptophytina taxobox and the Spermatophyta to the Pinophyta taxobox and am happy now. Things look smoother. Archaeplastida/Plant/Streptophytina/Embryophyta/Spermatophyta/Flowering plant and Archaeplastida/Plant/Streptophytina/Embryophyta/Spermatophyta/Pinophyta. Do you think I smoothed over something important? Stupid girl (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Part of the issue is, I think, that there's no consensus as to what "Plantae" means. The full hierarchy you give above forces it to mean the clade Viridiplantae, whereas just Archaeplastida/Plant/Pinophyta allows "Plantae" to be ambiguous between this and the Embryophyta, which is another meaning of "Plantae". When the full hierarchy is given, personally I'd be inclined to avoid "Plantae". Are there sources that support the name sequence you give? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did get one thing wrong. I didn't remember one of my changes. I also changed the "Flowering plant" taxobox to show the direct parent "Spermatophyta". The "Flowerig plant" taxobox only had shown "Embryophyta" before, but Embryophyta showed in its subdivisions that "Magnoliophyta" (Flowering plant) was a child of "Spermatophyta". Stupid girl (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Things get interesting. First of all: I'm no scientist, I have some experience handling systematic zoology and its ever-changing eternal truths in Wikipedia and Wikispecies, but am green with plants. I didn't consult any sources outside Wikipedia, and in my understanding don't need to. I didn't create the name sequence, I just duplicated what already was shown in related taxoboxes. I do not have a preference which taxonomy is "right". I do not have a preference which way to show parent taxa in taxoboxes is "right". I think it's OK when we show the direct parent taxon in a taxobox. I think it's also OK when we don't show the direct parent taxon in a taxobox. I think it's not good when we show the direct parent taxon with some of the children of the same parent but leave it out with others just by accident. If there is a scientific controversy involved, and the leaving out of the parent in the taxobox has been done with a purpose, it should be at least mentioned somewhere. To get into details, let's look at those first two cases separately: Stupid girl (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Pinophyta shows parent taxon Spermatophyta[edit]

I hope this one is uncontroversial. The same relation between Pinophyta and Spermatophyta was shown in the subdivisions of the direct parent taxobox "Spermatophyta", and in the more extensive subdivisions of the ancestral taxobox "Plantae". The parent taxobox "Plantae" had already been shown with Pinophyta. I did not invent that. The article "Pinophyta" does not mention anything regarding its external taxonomy that's why I guessed there is no controversy. Do you agree? Stupid girl (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we (i.e. Wikipedia) describe "Plantae" as a "Kingdom", and "Pinophyta" as a "Division". This is a clear, but perhaps now rather old-fashioned classification. The problem comes when you interpose "Spermophyta" as unranked and then look for a source that supports this. Some that include the three levels Plantae–Spermophyta–Pinophyta use Division Spermophyta–Class Pinopsida. Other sources use much lower ranks, such as Chase & Reveal (2009) who have Subclass Pinidae. Personally I'd omit "Spermophyta". But I'm not arguing for changing back, just noting that it can be regarded as problematic. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's start with the easy case. I am still open about the outcome. You are the expert. You decide what the scientific consensus is. I reserve the right to be anal about Wikipedia-internal consistency. I try to find a common base first.
(a) In general, the Wikipedia taxoboxes should show the scientific consensus position.
(b) In cases where the Wikipedia taxoboxes don't show the consensus it should at least be sourced, better still explained.
(c) If there is scientific consensus that taxon A is a child taxon of B, it can safely be inferred that there is also consensus that B is a parent taxon of A.
Do we agree so far? Now the observations I drew my conclusions from:
(d) The Spermatophyta taxobox shows the Division Pinophyta as a child.
(e) The Embryophyta taxobox shows Pinophyta as a child of "Seed plants (spermatophytes)", albeit below division level.
(f) The Plantae taxobox shows Pinophyta as a child of "Seed plants (spermatophytes)", again below division level.
Questions to the expert:
(g) Is there scientific consensus that Spermatophyta is a valid taxon?
(h) Is there scientific consensus that Pinophyta is a child taxon of Spermatophyta?
(i) Can we assume that the Pinophyta taxobox reflects an earlier time when there was consensus to rank it Division?
(j) In the time when Pinophyta was assumed to be a Division, how would its parent taxon Spermatophyta be ranked? Superdivision? Unranked? Anything else? Stupid girl (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think that your (c) is correct, and this rather undermines your beautiful step by step logic. It's possible that all of those who use taxon A agree that taxon B is its child, but that many more don't use taxon A at all, so the majority of those who use taxon B don't use taxon A as its parent. This implies that the article about taxon A will correctly show taxon B as a child in the taxobox, but that the article about taxon B won't show taxon A as a parent. This is why trying to connect taxoboxes into a complete chain doesn't work at present.
Ideally, different classifications by cited sources should be discussed in the text, and then one of these should be chosen for the taxobox – trying to pick one with reasonable consensus if possible. Often the best compromise in the taxobox where sources differ seems to me to use only a few key levels – the taxobox is meant as a summary. Taxoboxes in different articles then may or may not "connect up". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

2. Streptophytina shows parent taxon Plant(ae)[edit]

I'm not sure if I got this one right. I have been aware, and tried to leave ambiguous, the debate what Plantae means. The situation before my change was: Both Angiosperm (Flowering plant) and Pinophyta show Kingdom Plantae in their taxobox. Angiosperm shows the direct parent Spermatophyta, but Pinophyta shows no intermediate levels below Plantae. If you click your way up from Spermatophyta you never reach Kingdom Plantae. You get the sequence Spermatophyta-Embryophyta-Streptophyt(in)a, and Streptophytina does not show Kingdom Plantae, but Kingdom Archaeplastida. Both Spermatophyta and Embryophta show Kingdom Plantae but Streptophytina doesn't. That may be a case of scientific debate, and in that case I should not have changed it. But: The Archaeplastida article knows nothing about its elevation to Kingdom. It shows itself "(unranked)", and it shows with intended ambiguity the subgroup "Plantae or Viridiplantae". So, to make my case: The child taxobox "Embryophyta" (and the generations below) showed the relation that Streptophyta was a child of Plantae. The parent taxobox "Archaeplastida" showed that Plantae was a child of Archaeplastida. The parent taxobox "Plantae" does not show Streptophyt(in)a at all, and the article explains the different meanings. Do you think it would be more correct to leave out Kingdom Plantae in the Embryophyta taxobox and revert Streptophytina to what it was before? On the other hand, from a practical point of view, the Plant article explains the controversy, while the Streptophytina article is just a bunch of unexplained lists. And everything below has Kingdom Plantae. I still can understand and like my decision :) Ehm, should we go to the Streptophytina talk page to discuss this in public? Stupid girl (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Streptophytina article is a whole can of worms! Firstly, Streptophyta redirects there, but the two formal terms (as opposed to the informal "streptophyte") are not, as far as I can tell, always synonyms. There seem to be two main uses for "streptophyte". The first is as per the first cladogram at Embryophyte#Phylogeny and classification:
Viridiplantae
  • chlorophytes = Chlorophyta
    • various groups of chlorophyte algae
  • streptophytes = Streptophyta
    • various groups of algae, here called streptophyte algae, including charophytes
    • embryophytes
The second is as per Lewis & McCourt (2004) and Adl et al. (2012) at Streptophytina#Classifications
Viridiplantae
  • chlorophytes = Chlorophyta
    • various groups of chlorophyte algae
  • charophytes (some algae and embryophytes) = Charophyta
    • various groups of algae, here called charophyte algae
    • streptophytes = Streptophytina = Streptophyta
      • charophytes
      • embryophytes
"Streptophytina" is more logically used in the second sense where it's a subtaxon of Charophyta; "Streptophyta" is more logically used in the first sense as a primary division (small d) of Viridiplantae = Plantae.
Explaining this better has been on my to-do list for ages, but I'd hoped that there would be some more recent literature that clarified usage. I haven't found any! So I've no idea what is the best solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So funny[edit]

Really?? That is your username? Kitty 56 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Stupid girl. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Stupid girl. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mammals of Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mus. 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) 10:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Stupid girl. 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)