User talk:Tippitiwitchet

Thanks for the info, and welcome to Wikipedia. Nice to see someone start with an articulate, neutral, referenced edit ;-) Snottygobble 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotoneaster roseus

Hello Tippitiwitchet,

You recently edited the article for Cotoneaster roseus to show that the plant was first described in 1846, instead of 1851. I'm happy to have it changed but you showed no references. There is, however, a reference clearly viewable on the page for the date of 1851 from a reliable source. For now I am changing it back.

If you have a source, please make sure it is as reliable as the source for 1851 already shown, and make a judgement which is more reliable. If neither ref trumps the other, work it into the article that there are conflicting sources for the year of first description, then include both refs. If your ref is more reliable, then please change the reference that is already there so that the information in the article, and the information in the reference are the same. Otherwise we can make up any year.

Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right way to respond but I rarely log on to wikipedia, and this is an old message.

If you look at the link you mention to a "clearly viewable" reference (I agree it is a reliable source) you will see it is very clearly dated 1846 - not 1851.

I can assure you 1846 is right; 1851 is wrong. E. Charles Nelson (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¡ Egads ! You are correct (and I am changing it back to 1846)! It was such a long time ago when I posted this that I have only one possible clue as to how my information was incorrect: the GRIN page was last updated 12 January, 2010 – some time after this post – and maybe it then reported 1851. If the information was the same then as it stands now, then I really don't know where my information came from, but I was obviously in error. Hope you will accept my sincere apology. And yes, you responded in the proper way. Thanks for the belated correction, Hamamelis (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, I think I have a better idea of what happened, but I am still a bit confused. This page, from IPNI, shows the following:

"Trans. Linn. Soc. London 20(1): 46. 1846 [1851 publ. 29 Aug 1846]"

—to which I don't exactly know what they mean… And this page, from GRIN, shows

"Trans. Linn. Soc. London 20:46. 1846 "rosea" "

Perhaps it was first published as C. rosea in 1846, and later changed/corrected in a republication (1851) to C. roseus. I will try and find out more and report my findings here, just in case you may be interested… Hamamelis (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple. Trans Linn Soc was issued in a series of parts, and when the volume was complete a title-page was printed with the date 1851. Many people mistake that title-page date for the date of publication of the each component parts of the volume but under ICBN that is incorrect procedure. The dates of publication of all part of Trans Linn Soc have been worked out and are published (I don't have the exact reference to hand but the paper was by Sandra Raphael) and that is why the IPNI record has the qualified dates.

So Cotoneaster roseus was published in a part issued on 29 August 1846 and that is its correct date - the date 1851 is erroneous. The paper was read earlier, but the date of reading is not the date of printed publication. E. Charles Nelson (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for solving the mystery for me, and giving me a better understanding of this subject for future. We live and learn. All the best, Hamamelis (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Clare Emma Whitty, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Removal/editting of references without justification causing errors on the page. Addition of information without adequate reference to back it up. The one reference you did provide was already present on the article. UaMaol (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reject completely your comment that the edit "did not appear constructive" - it corrected erroneous information and corrected poor English too. I have carried out research on both Clare Emma Whitty and Sophia Angel St John Whitty and am confident of my information, and the amendments made the articles more accurate. CEW was born at Fenloe, County Clare, as clearly indicated on the registration of her birth and the article by Mooney (already cited) is correct; the information on the war memorials in Seoul and Lixnaw, alas, is inaccurate. It is not acceptable to say she was born either in Enniskerry (which is incorrect) or Fenloe: no-one can ever be born in two places!

I had to abandon the edit to deal with other matters but I will revisit these entries when I have time.

I have considerable experience in researching the history of Irish botany and botanists with Irish connections as you will see from my own wikipedia entry. Of course, if you have similar credentials I will be pleased to discuss the entry with you.E. Charles Nelson (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Uamaol. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Sophia St John Whitty, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please add sources to content you add to articles. UaMaol (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See message above. The person's name was Sophia Angel St John Whitty, and she was the older sister of Clare Emma Whitty. However, sometimes the information is the result of recent personal research in archives and can be complicated to reference, or may be unpublished!E. Charles Nelson (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]