User talk:Raasgat

Welcome!

Hello, Raasgat, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

I did notice you reverted my edits to Carl Axel Magnus Lindman‎. However, all I did was trying to implement the standards as described in the Manual of Style. So, please use this style guide when producing articles for Wikipedia. Thank you for contributing and happy editing. / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Well no, I couldn't find any guidelines concerning image captions in there either. How to use images is described in Wikipedia:Captions, Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, and Wikipedia:Image use policy. Beyond copyright issues, however, these guidelines are not carved in stone. I'm myself have sidestepped them in several articles (even extensively in articles such as Vädersolstavlan) so I left the captions in Lindman as you wanted them though I believe the rule of thumb is the KISS principle (as always).

Again, thank you for contributing and please don't allow me to distract you any further

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trango Towers edit

Hi. Please provide a source for your recent edit to Trango Towers otherwise it may be removed. RedWolf 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Namibie Quivertree Forest 02.JPG

As far as I can see, I mistakenly removed that image while cleaning up an extensive fair use problem in this and other articles. Thank you for catching my error! -- But|seriously|folks 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plant contributions

Hi there! I see your contributions often on the plants new article list and was wondering if you could do a couple of things to help out those of us who clean up, categorize, etc. within the WP:PLANTS project:

Each plant article should have a taxobox. See WP:TX for instructions on how to use the taxobox.
The size of articles you're creating are considered stubs and should be tagged as such. You can use the templates described at Category:Plant stubs.
On the talk page, could you tag the articles with {{WikiProject Plants}}? You can assess it if you want or leave it blank.

Let me know if you have any questions or any problems with this. I appreciate it! Thanks, -Rkitko ^(talk) 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Thanks for your note. Items 2 and 3 are no problem and I will do. Taxoboxes I find aesthetically messy and have tried to avoid them where possible. I find their position at the head of the article disruptive and have always felt that if forced into the article, they should be at the end, near the 'Category' section. My feeling about taxoboxes is that the information they convey can be done just as readily in the body of the article. The ghastly colours that are used are distinctly objectionable as is the boxy look. Otherwise, glad to hear from you! Raasgat 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and willingness to help us stub-sort and add the WikiProject Plants banner to the article talk pages that you create. That's great! It really does help us keep track of the now 21,000+ articles in the scope of the project. On taxoboxes: I have some misgivings about them, too. Specifically, I wish there was a parameter that could describe which circumscription the article was using (Cronquist, APGII, etc.), but otherwise I find them to be very useful and not a problem aesthetically. I find it especially useful when I'm creating the type of stubs to fill in a genus or family such as Levenhookia preissii. I might be able to place the synonym and binomial authority information in the text but in my opinion it clutters up the flow of the text and reduces its readability. Many of our readers may not know what the name after a binomial means, even if linked to the authority. The taxobox allows the information to still be present while the body of text is still readable by our general readership. For example, not m. It has been consensus to have them on all pages that describe taxa for quite a while. You don't have to add them, but we'd appreciate it if you did. Otherwise I'll continue to add the "needs-taxobox=yes" parameter in the assessment and someone from our project will be along to add one to the page. If you want to start a discussion on how you think they could be improved, you can do that at Template talk:Taxobox. Well, anyway, thanks for your reply and input. As always, let me know if I can clear anything up or help out in any way! Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are these taxoboxes obligatory or optional? Cheers Raasgat 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said above, there has been consensus to add taxoboxes to each and every article about a taxon. Even the plant articles that have become featured articles have taxoboxes. Clearly the community has placed value in the taxobox. Obligatory or optional? Well, you aren't required to put them on the taxa articles you create. Someone else will come along and do so, though. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there we are. If there is a consensus that taxoboxes improve articles, then I am out of step and must be the only one to feel that they detract, are aesthetically repulsive and are ignored by the average user. I certainly don't want to get into an edit war by acting on my convictions. Have fun Raasgat 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out they are useful for quickly finding the taxonomic information about a species, what the taxoboxes were originally intended for. They're also used as a navigation tool for getting information automatically, and, when moving between Wikipedias in obscure languages you barely pretend to speak, they are a godsend. Many other plant editors also feel they "detract, are aesthtecially repulsive and are ignored by the average user," so I was simply ignoring your South African geophyte articles that don't have taxoboxes--as your South African bulb articles are lovely, aesthetically pleasing and wonderful to have on Wikipedia for the average user. Still, they will eventually be abominated. KP Botany 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right - the abominations appeared sooner than one would have expected. Is all of Wikipedia permeated by Pharisees? Where is the freedom one heard so much about and most puzzling: how does improvement or change ever come about? Raasgat 13:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Plants

Hello, Raasgat and thank you for your contributions on plant- or botany-related articles. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Plants, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of plant-related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Rkitko ^(talk) 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical author template Margaret Levyns

Hi Rkitko, Is there a version of the author citation template which isn't bounded by 2 straight lines? My feeling is that besides the clumsy wording used, the author abbreviation isn't so important that it merits special treatment and could just as easily be included in the body of the text. Just a thought..... Raasgat 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's pretty standard practice to use the author citation template. It also automatically adds the page to a category (Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). I personally don't mind the structure and appreciate the fact that it is set apart from the body of the text. You can propose changes to the template at Template talk:Botanist if you'd like - wording, structure, etc. See what other people think. If you do leave a message there and no one replies (few people will have that on their watchlist), you could bring the issue up with WikiProject Plants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and see what the project editors think. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding headings

"Please do not change the format of the headings - nothing in the MoS obliges one to use the horizontal divisions."

Yes, it does: WP:HEAD. The headings with two equal signs are crucial to the article when it is given many more headings. Also, review WP:OWN. The heading style is widely established in Wikipedia and override your style preferences on the articles you create. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so I'd ask that you please change them back. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The convention will apply if there are different levels of headings - in this case they are all the same level. I think I know enough about ownership not to be guilty of it, but that doesn't mean that I will stand idly by while someone makes changes that do NOT improve the article; such as placing distribution maps in the taxobox - can you cite an MoS guideline for that? Also I note that you redirected Wood Screw Pump stating that it was not a proper noun - well, it is. I see that you have been dogging my footsteps and editing everything I do - I'm sure there must be more useful things for you to do.... Raasgat 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different levels of headings or not, WP:HEAD seems to clearly prefer ==Heading== as the initial heading. In your opinion, the changes I made do not improve the article. That may very well be, but both the range maps and the headings are established standards. (There isn't an MoS for every detail, but there are clear precedents. Range maps are often placed near a section on their distribution if the page is large enough. If not, they're usually placed in the taxobox.) Maintaining styles that you prefer in articles you create and edit against established standards may be correctly assumed to be a violation of WP:OWN.

I do apologize for moving Wood Screw Pump. Upon seeing it was named after A. Baldwin Wood, I assumed that it was one type of many screw pumps. I should have checked the ref's, you're right. Please accept my apology for that error.

There's no need to assume I'm watching your edits. I keep the bot-generated new plant article list on my watchlist. All of your species articles have turned up there. I make it a habit to review an editor's other contributions for similar issues (like WP:HEAD). That's a large part of what I do and it is indeed useful. My goal is to bring new articles up to standards. I apologize if it seemed like I was watching your movements here; that's not my goal here.

I value your contributions, especially on the genus of plants you've been filling in. They're fantastic starts for these articles that may not have otherwise been written for quite some time. I appreciate your endeavor and encourage you to continue. It seems like you have the source information available to finish off the genus, correct? I myself just completed creating stubs for all Levenhookia species (still working on the rest of the Stylidiaceae).

I meant to ask you. You don't have very many contributions here on en.wikipedia - do you edit in another language? I admire anyone that can. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia clearly states repeatedly, most of the manual of style is guidelines. I question that Wikipedia has as policy headings that involve dividing lines across the article - I have seen very many articles dispensing with the lines, and when necessary, depending on the size of font to establish different levels of heading. To see how out of step the lines are, please check articles written with an eye to layout by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6970173.stm They also use different-sized fonts to differentiate between various heading levels where necessary. As for my paranoia about being stalked, you will notice that 24 out of 27 edits you carried out on 3 September were on articles that I was working on. To me that is unacceptable, and clearly constitutes being targeted. Your "valuing my contributions" comes across as being extremely patronising - perhaps choosing another word in your future exchanges with other editors, might lead to more amicable relationships. I'm sorry if this message seems confrontational - it is not intended. I would far rather that we co-operated, because it would leave time to be constructive in creating other articles and not to expend one's time and energy on futilities. Cheers, Raasgat 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you that civiity is policy. You are ignoring the consideration shown by a number of editors, your apology above is a non-apology. Your accusations are unwarranted, and unacceptable. Stalking is a serious allegation, it is not what you described above. You have the opportunity to edit to your preference, but that is given to us all. If you diverge from guidelines, expect to be challenged. Claiming a blanket right to do as you please is willful misinterpretation, stick to discussion on improvement. Cygnis insignis 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the above do I claim a "blanket right to do as I please" - that is wilful misinterpretation on your part. As for an apology - none was intended, as I have done nothing which calls for an apology or which calls for veiled threats about lack of civility. If Rkitko feels that I have impugned his honour, let him take it up in the appropriate forum. I don't think it's up to you to act as his protector - he seems perfectly capable of doing so by himself. Have a good day! Raasgat 12:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a designer, but when was the last time you saw an encyclopedia with good design? (Thought a little humor might be good - ignore it if you feel it's misplaced.) Regardless, layout/style that you're talking about isn't an individual's choice on Wikipedia. The style guidelines may not be policy, but they do represent consensus.

As for the allegation of targeting your edits, you should have seen the day I went cleaning up after one editor who was adding copyrighted material from PROTAbase. You should have seen my edits that day! Nearly all of them were right after this editor. Judging by your criteria, was I also stalking this editor? Forgive me if it appeared that way, but it was not my intention to stalk you.

I often use the phrase "value your contributions" with what appears to be a newbie editor making botanical contributions. As I already stated, I watch the new-plant list, tag the new articles with the WP:PLANTS banner, and attempt to encourage those new editors I encounter to continue their good work, sometimes with suggestions. Saying I value your contributions is not meant to sound patronizing and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.

Perhaps this discussion is misdirected. You clearly disagree with some of the style guidelines on Wikipedia. Since this is a wiki, we can find the appropriate locations and involve the community in a larger discussion of the things you would change. Also, I believe User:Cygnis insignis has offered to help change the formatting (I assume through a user's monobook script?). I'd urge you to follow those avenues instead of disregarding consensus. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop ignoring consensus (diff). You have been told by several editors that your choice of heading style is unacceptable. Please follow the guidelines in future contributions. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen much evidence of the supposed consensus - but lots of evidence of lack of aesthetics and layout awareness. Some editors wouldn't recognise aesthetics if it were handed to them on a skewer. If my changes and contributions are hacked about as they have been, I shall certainly take my marbles and go home. The sequence is boringly predictable - small group of editors dictating their version of policy whilst shouting 'consensus' and reassuring each other that they are doing a good job, then accusations of incivility and finally blocking to show who holds the power. Tragic..... Raasgat 16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is apparent from all the articles on Wikipedia that follow the guideline, not to mention the guideline itself. I agree that aesthetics is important, but we should not let it get in the way of Wikipedia's primary objective: providing information in the form of a free encyclopedia. You should expect that your contributions may be changed. I refer you to the text below every edit window: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. While I don't want to discourage you from contributing since there is nothing wrong with the substance of the articles you create, I would discourage you from continuing these controversial aesthetics edits.

Additionally, I wanted to ask you about User:Paul venter. I noticed a lot of similarities between your edits and that user's. Can you comment on that? --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly seem to mind if I edit your changes mercilessly.....but of course, you feel that you act within the spirit of Wikipedia, whereas I am the troublemaker. There seems to be a vast gulf between editors who try to contribute encyclopaedic content and those who patrol the articles looking for anything which smacks of deviance - a bit like the McCarthy communist witchhunts - seeing subversion at every turn. Looking at Paul Venter's discussion page, I can certainly emphathise. He seems to have run into the same sort of inflexibility and horror of change that I have found so frustrating, but then you wouldn't know about that, taking such great pains to fit in. Have a lovely and cosy stay in the corridors of Wikipedia! Raasgat 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I fail to see how not having horizontal lines all over an article gets in the way of providing information - to my mind those lines do nothing to improve the article Raasgat 07:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we're not creating an aesthetically pleasing encyclopedia. We're just creating an encyclopedia. And one aspect of long-standing consensus that I also find frustrating is that articles pretty much have to conform to related articles. Plant articles look alike in layout and content and groupings and taxoboxes, although they may read differently. This is pretty standard for encyclopedias. I hated and fought it at first, but now I abide by it. I don't like it. But I can't contribute without agreeing that my articles will be largley the same icky layout as all the rest. It's the content and the sourcing that makes anything I write stand out--that's all. I even participated, in fact was the leading party, in taking down a brilliant and beautiful article to Wikify it. An article that glistened in the sun. But is now merely a featured article. It's how this community does business. Rkitko has to say he values your contributions because we're desperate for quality plant editors. But we're stuck with the format without large scale consensus within the community to change it. KP Botany 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is a hell of a laborious grind getting people out of their very deep ruts - or does everyone feel that WP is already perfect and no changes are necessary? Raasgat 07:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one but the clueless thinks Wikipedia is perfect. We don't even think it's anywhere approaching perfect, or even on the correct side of the line dividing perfect from imperfect, or of perfect from crap for many of us editing plant articles. Occasionally we change something for the better, though. KP Botany 13:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a team of clueless chums busily cramming images into taxoboxes as we speak. I can't imagine they think it improves the articles - I think it's a demonstration of presumed peck order - this is our turf, and as a newcomer you'd better watch your step! lovely day over here, otherwise Raasgat 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's an established convention to place images in a taxobox. I do indeed think it improves the article, especially if there's only a single image. And please, be careful of personal attacks - calling a group of editors "clueless chums" because they're following precedent by placing images in infoboxes is not constructive. Your assumption that this is a display of power is incorrect. My motivation is to maintain these articles to guidelines. I was fairly certain you weren't a newbie from the first few edits I encountered. Edit wars over style are not productive and I would suggest we all keep our cool here. --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Raasgat, no one is doing this because you are a newcomer. All new botany articles are posted to AlexNewArticleBot plant pages. I and most of the other botany editors check articles and add taxoboxes, images, formating, whatever is needed. The established botany editors put requests in their edit summaries to let other editors know what is needed. For example, when I start a new article, I request a formating and copyedit in the edit summary and Rkitko, or some other botany editor sees my new article on AlexNewArticleBot list and copyedits or formats. They also check my contributions because I don't format images well and when I submit a new article on any other topic, or add an image, be it obscure Polish noble history, or Iranian geology, a botany editor formats the images and references for me. No article is owned by a single editor, and if you want to change the style of articles you do it by proposing your changes to the community and getting feedback until we reach a consensus, not just by changing the style. We've gone over the taxobox issue many times, and it can be revisited, but it probably won't change anything. Please, when a large community has established guidelines it is usually more effective to come in and work from the inside rather than severely criticizing everything without understanding that the system is not perfect and we know it, but it is the best we can do now for various reasons. Rkitko is not very big on displays of power--some editors may be, but he's rather the opposite, so it seems you've misjudged the existing situation with the one editor sufficiently that it may be you're not seeing the rest of the situation clearly, either. The style isn't the most important thing about articles, either.KP Botany 03:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breath

Just keep telling yourself, "more is better, more is better, more is better." I'm working right now on trying to convince a guy to stop adding an agriculture and horticulure banner, each over 12" long, to every plant page--but maybe if the taxoboxes expand to fill all the space.... KP Botany 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headings =

Hi Raasgat. I undid your edit at Haemanthus. There are other ways of changing the formatting, I can help with that if you need it. Your use of headings may complicate the editing, and rendering, of the article. –Cygnis insignis 01:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more changes here. Cygnis insignis 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a fact tag and a commons link at Edwards. Do you wish to discuss this further? Cygnis insignis 08:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or this? Cygnis insignis 08:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a reply at Edwards. I am assuming you are aware of WP:3RR, but I am formally advising you not to continue doing it. I frequently deviate from guidelines in stubs, but this is not to be provocative and engage others in discussion. You are unlikely to succeed in improving articles or productivity by taking this approach. Also, please assist others by adding as much detail to your image uploads as possible. Include a link to the source of the digital version in the description, others can use it to find more info or images. This is especially true of the commercial sites; the images are rotated by sales, something previously unavailable may come up. The same for your references here, ADB is inadequate. Cygnis insignis 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADB is not my contribution......Raasgat 06:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, my mistake. I have a few links to info on him, if you are interested in making more improvements to the article. Cygnis insignis 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so - your consensual ideas of improvement are painfully different from mine. Raasgat 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I think it presumptuous on your part to characterise my deviation from guidelines as "provocative" whilst blithely condoning your own, and then proceeding to sermonise me and give me the benefit of your personal opinion as if you were the official spokesman for Wikipedia policy. Raasgat 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Paul venter for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Desmond Martin00.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Desmond Martin00.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:MiraUVtail.jpg

The file File:MiraUVtail.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused low-resolution version of File:GALEX Image of Mira.jpg

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]