User talk:Anlace/Archive 2

Dunnottar Castle[edit]

Hi. I thought I'd ask how the cleanup work at Dunnottar castle was coming along? SP-KP 10:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some work done. i am open to your idea of peer review Anlace 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that. Take a look at WP:PR for details. If you'd like some input once you've set up the review, let me know SP-KP 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its on peer review now Anlace 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Beach Distillery is a California Point of Historical Interest.[edit]

You were almost right.
More info: Talk:Moss_Beach,_California
--Uglydude | Talk 14:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your support, i noticed that myself but didnt want to escalate the revert activity :) Anlace 14:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you do your research better before you accuse me of not doing my research. At best, Moss Beach Distillary is a California Point of Historical Interest. However, it is not a CHL.

--Jvsett 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelain[edit]

Hello there! Regarding your recent edit of the Porcelain article, there are a couple of comments on Talk:Porcelain that you might care to have a look at. Regards, Nick. Nick 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Sfgsnake.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sfgsnake.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SHE model processes.gif[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SHE model processes.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TheGrappler 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Monboddo[edit]

Hi there again. I still don't see any great evidence to think that Monboddo was terribly influential on Darwin or his theories at all. I could imagine putting a small note about him in the History of evolutionary thought page but beyond that, it doesn't seem warranted. Here's all that Peter Bowler gives him in Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd edn), after discussing Linnaues and Buffon's ideas about human nature:

James Burnet, Lord Mondboddo, argued in the first volume of his Of the Origin and Progress of Language, published in 1774, that the apes might represent the earliest form of humanity. But he regarded humans (savages and apes) as quite distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom.

He then goes from that to start discussing Lamarck at some length. I've yet to find any reference to Monboddo in any source on the history of evolution that made him sound really very consonant with what Darwin was doing. To say that Darwin's theory was only about apes and humans being related, which seems to be Monboddo's sole relevant contribution, is a gross misunderstanding of what Darwin was doing and what makes Darwin different than other evolutionary theories. Now, I again am first to admit that I don't know if that's all Monboddo was saying, but even the newer version of his page here doesn't give any real details about his scientific theories. All it currently contains is:

Finally one must remark that Burnett seemed strangely obsessed with man's relation to other primates. He clearly believed that the orangutan was a form of man; furthermore, he accepted an account of a Swedish explorer that reported one primitive tribe had tails. Most astonishingly, he at one time said that humans must have all been born with tails, that were simply removed by midwives at birth. His contemporaries ridiculed his views, but later commentators have seen him preceding the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin. In any case in his serious analysis he clearly argued that animal species adapted and changed to survive, and his observations on the morphological similarities of man to primates underscored his clear concepts of evolution.

Which still does not sound very much like Darwin to me at all. Arguing for blunt transmutationism is not the same thing as putting forward a real scientific theory of evolution, and Monboddo's statements look nothing at all like the sorts of things Darwin was saying. As for your other question -- I'm not a physicist, I'm a historian of science. --Fastfission 01:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:SHE model processes.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:SHE model processes.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Croceum.jpg]|thumb]

Can you please review the license tag you gave to this image? You stated "author don roberson has kindly granted permission to use this on long toed salamander article in wikipedia", which would suggest he did not give permission to use it on other articles (as is now the case). I also think the image should carry a gfdl rather than gfdl-self tag if you are not Don Roberson. Many thanks and kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is not called "West Bay"[edit]

I was going to make the case here to you that the Bay side of the Peninsula is often referred to as the West Bay, but I found that unnecessary: just check the discussion page for the article. Someone has already rebutted this with many references, thereby saving me the trouble. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not commonly called the west bay, but i'll save my arguing energy for other more substantive articles (: Anlace 02:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Beverston gatehouse.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Beverston gatehouse.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

tag provided Anlace 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Coquerelsdiningrazorback.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Coquerelsdiningrazorback.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution article[edit]

You're correct - that article could be fleshed out quite a bit. Regarding oil and rashes, I saw a report on the BBC about oil production, abandoned wells and pipeline leaks which resulted in the local kids suffering skin problems. There was no doctors around to treat the people and no-one was being compensated. I will try to make an effort with this topic and bring some references as well. - Shiftchange 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auks[edit]

I noticed your edits for Razorbill etc. Two points

bird species names should be fully capitalised
I have some doubts about the "where to see" for such common birds, especially when its heavily biased to the UK - especially no NAm sites for Atlantic Puffin. My first inclination was to revert, but I've only done that for the puffin, which was on the wrong page. I'll think about the others. jimfbleak 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental science template[edit]

I added some comments to the Talk page of the environmental science template as you asked me to do. I hope that I haven't offended too many people by being too blunt. Cheers! - mbeychok 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Thanks for your support on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar de Evia. This has become a real "joke" or game to a few persons with whom I have disagreed in the past. If you look at the history page on Edgar de Evia, Abu Badali after adding my name to the external link you added he puts in his edit summary "(let's be fair and give due credit. (it's getting fun))". We had a civil disagreement over his effort to remove all fair use images a while back. This was all started by ExplorerCDT went on and on, I believe misinterpreting the guideline under Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. He then filed RfC, which doesn't even meet the requirements for the RfC and its gone on and on. Edgar de Evia was one of the most successful editorial photographers, yes with major credits and I have many of the tear sheets, but in many cases without the issues and dates. I have added some of this and am looking for more. Unless someone is current national news it's somewhat catch as catch can with who gets into editorial obits at the New York Times and one person that was out of the country would most likely have written it had she been here. Edgar even had credit on a number of photo spreads in the New York Times. All of this will come full circle in time, but it is annoying. My email button in the toolbox is active if you wish to email me. Thanks again. Doc ♬ talk 14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farallon / Humphrey[edit]

Hi! You added this note to Farallon Islands about Humphrey the Whale. The Humphrey the Whale article says this event occured in 1991, not 2001. Neither article has a reference. Which one is correct? -- Cjensen 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the source material is in conflict. im working on this, but it may take a couple of months Anlace 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question I asked of you in Point source[edit]

you avoided the question I asked of you in the discussion at Talk:Point source. Do you or do you not believe that the re-organization done by Michael Hardy about 2 days ago should be completely overturned because a few of the stubs may not be useful and, I might add, because Srleffler is overly concerned with the fact that Point source may not agree with the Manual of Style?

In our previous dealings, you have always been straight with me. I really expected a definitive answer from you. - mbeychok 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i answered it on that talk page on sept 6 at 12:23 UTC. i didnt want to add to the turmoil, so i just said deletion of those stubs seems like a good idea. we seem to have too many stubs floating around here and who knows when or whether some of them will ever turn into articles. what do you think? sincerely Anlace 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have still avoided answering the question I asked. I guess you've made up your mind not to answer it for some reason. As for the stubs, I already responded by saying that you could simply request their deletion. - mbeychok 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am really missing the question being asked by you. i didnt want to stir up an argument about anyone's past edits, so i didnt comment on Michael Hardy's "re-organization". now that you seem to belabour the matter i have tried to study his edits and dont find them to have a great impact. i m more interested in where we are going here than trying to criticise anyone's past edits. i think point source should be as unified as possible. if the concensus is to have a separate point source (pollution) article, then so be it. i really would like to get rid of the multiplicity of stubs, but i would also like others to weigh in before i just start axing away. most of our readers are interested in the concept of point source and all this fragmentation doesnt help them. if im still missing your question, kindly rephrase it. im not trying to dodge any question. frankly i cant make much sense of much of the talk page on point source regards Anlace 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point source[edit]

I sort of reversed your change to point source. Point source (heat) is covering a broader topic than thermal pollution. Not all point sources of heat are "thermal pollution". Someone who ends up at point source but wanted information on thermal pollution point sources should follow the link to Point source (pollution). I changed the order of the links to make the specific pollution article more obvious.--Srleffler 05:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Anjajavy forest meets sea.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Anjajavy forest meets sea.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhard T 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all required data has now been added to this image. Anlace 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Zakouma elephant slaughter[edit]

Hello; I'm glad to see you're watching the page.. i didn't mean harm by my edits, and after looking at the national geographic and yahoo news article again, i still don't see what is in them that isn't in the press release? i noticed you didn't end up putting the references back anyway, so perhaps you had a change of heart? cheers, 131.111.220.6 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i did put the national geographic ref back in. it is important because it:

clarifies funding of the aerial surveys,
makes specific mention of the poachers weapons as automatic weapons,
adds insights regarding poachers actions on attacking the reporter;
adds corrorboration as an independent reporting source; and
has inherent stature as the National Geographic publication. Anlace 14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you but the National Geographic makes no mention whatsoever of "assault weapons" they refer to automatic weapons, something completely different. While the true definition of "assault weapon" is a man-portable shoulder-fired rocket launcher (such as an AT-4, or LAW rocket) used to crack open bunkers and other hardened positions at the start of an assault, general usage defines an "assault weapon" as a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name, appearance, or design to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. Please note semi-automatic, not automatic. The National Geographic source clearly states automatic weapon therefore it is not an assault wepon by very definition. I have been in the firearms trade for many, many years if I you ever need help naming weapons please do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. L0b0t 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Geographic article calls the weapons observed "automatic weapons" and the wildlife conservation article calls them "assault rifles". In any case, this thread is about a user deleting a significant reference and your discussion of nuances in weaponry underscores the importance of using multiple references to give the reader the broadest insights. thank you for helping me prove my point to anonymous user 131.111.220.6 Anlace 19:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just need to interject here. An assault weapon is a purely political construct relating to the prohibition of semiautomatic firearms, particularly the Federal assault weapons ban. The exception to this is the SMAW and SRAW, which are multi-purpose man portable rocket launchers, and are the only such weapons used by the military with the label "assault weapon". An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing an intermediate power cartridge, such as the AK-47 or the M-16. An automatic weapon may cover everything from a machine pistol to an M2 machine gun; anything significantly larger is considered an automatic cannon. Note however that the media is woefully incorrect in its terminology, and will call anything that looks even vaugely military an assault rifle or asault weapon--usually while showing footage of people firing machine guns, to further mislead the audience. scot 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic firearms and elephants[edit]

See Talk:Automatic firearm scot 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event Tag[edit]

I've removed the tag from the Geography of Chad article because I don't think it's appropriate. (The geography of a whole country isn't going to change significantly as a result of any current event, however major.) I'm happy that it should remain on the Zakouma National Park article, and have left it there. Kahuzi 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic firearms and elephants[edit]

See Talk:Automatic firearm scot 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal courtship[edit]

I'd deleted the section. When you see such drivel, please be bold and do the same. Wikipedia suffers from tendency to accumulate every possible garbage and people are often too afraid to delete it since they don't know about it. Pavel Vozenilek 04:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct it as need, please. This page is magnet for people pretending to have great sense of humor. If something suspicious gets added on such pages it often gets deleted without much of thinking. Pavel Vozenilek 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Southern California[edit]

I saw that you have been changing the rankings on the talk pages. I don't have a problem that. In fact I was just using those articles as placeholders as I was creating the different assessment categories. I do have one other comment ... Rueben Martinez is notable. --evrik 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his article wouldnt exist unless he were notable. on the other hand, in terms of importance ranking within southern california, that's a much higher bar. most articles within the california domain are ranked low or mid; only a handful of articles have a higher ranking, eg the governor Anlace 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well that may be true ... but the assessment has existed for about a day ... time to get tagging ... --evrik 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to congratulate you on all the work you've been doing with the assessments. I looked at the log and saw your edits. Second, I was soured when I saw your comments at Talk:Lloyd Monserratt. That article is especially relevant to Southern California, and why you have to comment about afd. Despite whether you may be wrong or right, your edit summaries are confrontational.evrik 14:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Lloyd Monserratt You obviously now have a bug up your bonnet about this article. I have gone back and addressed your citation issues. The article has survived one afd ... I don't want to have to go through it again ... but the article is much better than the last time. It also meets B criteria Unless you are going to nominate it for AFD, I'm going to ask that you leave the article alone. --evrik 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated the article for good article status. --evrik 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitis californica[edit]

If you're adding importance categories to the CA flora articles, V. californica is of major agricultural importance because it is used as a root stock for commercial grapes, particularly in the wine industry. KP Botany 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in mid for now. I think, though, that it is a major rootstock for vineyards all over the world--if that's the case it should go high, but let me find out first. Wine isn't exactly my area. KP Botany 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insights. It's in mid for now. Anlace 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for administrator help for page presently called Halltorp[edit]

This page was just moved by a user to the pagename Halltorp citing grammar. the fact is that Halltorps usually occurs in the literature and in spoken terms as the "s" ending. i am proposing to move this page to Halltorps Manor, which satisfies the grammar interest of Tupsharru. When creating this article, I used the page Halltorps Manor as a redirect, so that admin help is needed to move the page to Halltorps Manor. I will take care of any ensuing double redirects, since i created all of the links in the first place. thank you. Anlace 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pyadoniijohngame.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pyadoniijohngame.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image issue resolved after discussion with copyright holder and change of license. Anlace 05:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered plants[edit]

While your articles on this topic are good works, I believe they would gain greatly if you could get some collaboration from the folks of WP:PLANTS for formatting, improvement of wikilinks and so on. I'm sure the project's guys would be delighted to work with someone who is so dedicated to locating useful nonbotanical sources. Circeus 00:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol Fuel[edit]

Hi Anlace. I'm not sure how to respond to your message on my user talk page so that you can see it, so I'm posting it here as well. Otherwise, wouldn't you have to check my talk page to see if I've responded? In any case, thanks for the encouragement.

i would like to help with the article, but at this stage i need to learn much more. i still haven't read the whole farrell review, for instance :). one thing i find very frustrating with energy-related information is that it seems to be especially biased; people take strong positions on this issue. in one way this is good, because it means that people take energy issues very seriously as they should, and the debate is lively. in another way, it's very difficult to assess the viability of some solutions. for instance, when someone says that the energy density of a wind farm can be calculated from the fact that the footprint of a wind turbine is only 10 square meters, there is obviously a spin verging on dishonesty at work! the same applies to nuclear advocates who say that all issues surrounding environmental contamination and waste storage have been solved - if only people would listen. i would like to see the full-cost accounting for all energy systems. it's a big demand, but how else can one make informed decisions? how do you feel about this, Anlace? --Robert Turner 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jepson Flora[edit]

Hi again - not sure if you've noticed (as you haven't linked it), the Jepson Flora is available online. The base link is

 

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?

then add Genus+species at the end, as in e.g.

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?Cupressus+abramsiana

MPF 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the tip. i have begun linking using your tip in my newest plant articles. Anlace 06:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the link is such a regular format, it would be easy to create a template to simplify the links. ^Blank ^Verse 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image licensing[edit]

I was going to put the article in the lead with the image you suggested, but there's a conflict between the licence you uploaded the picture under and the watermark in the bottom-left corner of the image. Did you find the image on a Department of Agriculture website, or did Mark W. Skinner add a note to his website crediting them? If either's the case, I'd reupload the image cropping out the bottom cm or so to get rid of the offending watermark. --GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done as you suggested. Anlace 16:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceanothus[edit]

The Ceanothus article should be ranked at least mid, in importance for California articles, it is a major world horticultural plant, it's not found only in California, but California is its center for diversity. I changed the tag myself. KP Botany 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to Calochortus tiburonensis, there are hundreds of other plants that are endangered, rare and endemic to California, I think over 100 California serpentine endemics alone. Will they all be high importance? KP Botany 22:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for taking the time to do this, though. I find tasks like categorizing, to be tedious, but they are one of the most useful things for making Wikipedia accessible to new contributors and experts. Also they create usable guidelines for established editors by rating needs to expand articles--in a more significant way than someone running through every short article and putting a "stub" or "expansion" tab on it. KP Botany 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your input on the ceanothus article and for your feedback on my (otherwise) almost thankless task of categorizing. i agree with you that the evaluation and assessment of articles really helps novice and expert and is also a guide to those seeking to improve articles. i dont deem my assessments perfect, but i have broad enough knowledge to know they are a good start at the assessment process. as to tiburonensis. First of all i stand by my ranking of high importance, not only per endangered but also this plant is in the path of land development and has been cited in a number of marin county lawsuits over zoning issues. In general it is really a ratio matter. presently we only have about 10000 articles in proj california and i think there are articles on only about two dozen endangered California plants. thus i think all of those plants probably will fall unders "high" importance. at such time as we have articles on all the endangered plants we may also have 200,000 total calif articles and thus most of the endangered plant articles will probably merit a "high" rating still. your point is a good one and hopefully will stimulate more discussion on this matter. Anlace 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, development alone won't do it, even in addition to the others, as there is pretty much not a single species in California that is not in the way of development. It's a cute plant, though, interesting to have been found so late in the game. I think there are certainly more than 2 dozen plant articles! I hope so! Arctostaphylos and Adenostoma fasciculatum should be high because of their dominance of certain types of ecosystems, and for the former's extensive biodiversity in the state, the latter's role in Southern California wildfires--and 'cause the first one's purty and the second ones has a lovely scent, well probably not for those reasons. KP Botany 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i meant to say "two dozen endangered California plants" which i have corrected above. i have assessed the two plants you cited while giving you credit for the evaluation (and i agree with you completely that the plant need not be endangered to be high importance), cheers. Anlace 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two dozen endangered is better. Still, Wikipedia is a bit slack in the botany department. No need to give me credit, if you agree and know the plants. I wanted you to tag them, though, in case their articles lead you to other CA plants and categories that might need tags. KP Botany 18:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]