User talk:Rkitko/Archive11

Move to scientific names

Can you move these to scientific names. I was going to edit some of the Pakistani flora edit articles, but ran into these. Coltsfoot Alpine Bistort Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

YDone. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate filling out the move request template. --KP Botany (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1873 in India

Why did you revert adding cat:history of Pakistan to 1873 in India? It should also have cat:history of Bangladesh and cat:history of Burma added, rather than history of Pakistan removed. But, I'm not much on categorization, so maybe you could explain it to me, if I'm missing something. --KP Botany (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on this, but it didn't immediately make sense to me. Ultimately, 1873 in India will contain some events and history related to modern Pakistan, but many of the events will have very little to do with it. It would be like placing Donatia in Category:Saxifragales because at one time it was considered to be part of that family. Maybe the analogy doesn't translate fully to this situation, but that was my general thought process. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the analogy works in this instance, because all of the history of Donatia isn't subsumed in the its order, but all of the history of Pakistan for most of the latter half of the 19th century took place under the British Raj. The people and the states and the empires still had a 19th century history, even if Pakistan didn't exist for a while yet, and there are important aspects of 19th century British history related to British Baluchistan and Pakistani Punjab as parts of India, that make inclusion in the category useful for readers of the encyclopedia. I'll revert if I can find them. I'm still rather uncertain about categorizing in general, though. --KP Botany (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New utric

Icing on the cake? --NoahElhardt (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

International Monetary Systems

Hi - since you were so kind when I first stumbled into here, I was wondering if you give me a little help now. While patrolling the old new pages backlog, I ran across this article, International Monetary Systems which shone out as so much better than the backlogged articles and indeed than many articles I get when I go looking for them intentionally that I thought it was worth nominating for a Good Article. It seems to me to have everything - good focused intro, clear organization and writing, inline citations, wiki and outside links, serious references. For goodness sakes it even manages to have good and relevant pictures, which for the topic is quite something. If you don't mind taking a look at it, could you leave your impressions on my talk page? Thanks! Alice (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Chili manzanar alto

On October 23rd of 2008, you commented regarding the confusion in the Chili manzanar alto, on the articles talk page: Talk:Chili manzanar alto. I wanted to make you aware that I have recommended the article be merged with Garden strawberry. The discussion is at: Talk:Garden strawberry#Merger proposal for Chili manzanar altoJo7hs2 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

C. obamae

Nice find with the presidential lichen! Hadn't even heard of it... Sasata (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw it on ScienceDaily. It is telling that my first thought was "that would be a nice DYK article..." --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

C. obamae

Nice work on Caloplaca obamae! I heard about this yesterday, and I was happy to see such a well-researched, well-written article on it already available on Wikipedia! --Polylerus (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Big Thanks

Hi Rkitko,

Thanks for the invite to the Wikipedian meet up in Ohio. I am going to try and make it if life slows down a bit. Eclectic hippie ^{talk to me} 15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Caloplaca obamae

On April 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caloplaca obamae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of inline information to boxed version

What is your problem with this? Don't you have any other cages to rattle? Your dogging my edits is really quite tiresome although mildly flattering. Try being creative instead of a mugwump! Rotational (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple. Your edit removed the reference and the microformat data included in the botanist template. I reverted to the version of the article that included those elements. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so simple - would you kindly be more specific about the data removed. Rotational (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference removal is obvious, so I assume you're asking about the microformat. See Template:Botanist#Microformat and the links there. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Waterloo Village page

Dear Ryan, it appears that you are interested in following the pages that I have created and/or edited. Most notably the Lackawanna Cut-Off and, most recently, Waterloo Village. (There may be others, but I haven't checked those today.) I know we have had our difference of opinion regarding the format of the Lackawanna Cut-off page, although I don't recall any discourse whatsoever on the page's content. As you know, you performed a format edit (decreasing the size of the photos on the page) on the Cut-off page earlier today, indicating that the page didn't format correctly on your monitor. I incidentally have the same exact problem after you performed your edits. So, which one of us is "right"? I know this has come up before. Perhaps we need a third party to resolve this disagreement, although it would be preferable for us to do this amicably ourselves. However, I was most surprised to see that you performed a major format edit (size of photos again) on the Waterloo Village page today, a page that until now you have never contributed to. As a result, it's apparent that you are monitoring my edits. While it's impossible for me to know what your motivation is, I'm sure that you are familiar with the concept of wikihounding, and your actions today, in my opinion, strongly suggest of wikihounding. I'm not sure whether this is reaching the point of harassment or not, but all I can say is that I haven't been checking the pages that you have been working on, nor do I intend to. I'll respectfully request that you cease and desist. I would truly prefer not to have to press the issue of wikihounding--or harassment. I'll leave at that for now. ChuckWally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, I would direct you to MOS:IMAGES ("Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." and "As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default)"). Also WP:LAYOUT#Images. This is not a matter of a simple disagreement. This is a matter of your preference for images, which appears to be contrary to guidelines. If you wish to set your default image size larger to fit the layout you prefer, you can do this by changing your preferences (link above next to "my watchlist" >> files tab). On the issue of what you call wikihounding, there is nothing wrong with checking out your other edits; this is in fact the reason we record contributions and make them public. I'm aware of your (in my view, incorrect according to our guidelines) image preferences and it is perfectly acceptable and encouraged to check out your other contributions and fix them accordingly. Incidentally, I've also had family that worked at Waterloo Village years ago... Regardless, the Waterloo page looked awful and certainly violated MOS:IMAGES by cramming text in between two large images not once, but twice. If you find any of my edits to be objectionable, I encourage you to monitor my edits and fix them according to guidelines or policy! This is not hounding, harassment, or wikistalking. This is part of the collaboration. If you truly feel that I'm in the wrong, please do bring it up (WP:AN/I is one of the places, but one of the dispute resolution methods is best, first). Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BotanyBot

Hi, I noticed that a BotanyBot has previously removed the "name" parameter from taxoboxes to make the title of the article italicised. There is an ongoing discussion here about making a bot to do this to all species/genus articles. I thought you may have something which you could add to the discussion. There is another discussion about this at the wikiproject Tree of Life here. Cheers Smartse (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rkitko. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I saw your note, but I wasn't sure if you'd generally watch pages where you just left a bug report. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks

I've been fooling around with a script that identifies the most common redlinks in the articles belonging to a given category. For now I've only been feeding it small categories, whilst I make it robust. This morning I fed it Category:Flora of Western Australia, and the two most common redlinks turned out to be in your field: Drosera sect. Erythrorhiza and Benj. I stubbed the easy one. (This is idle conversation, not a request that you blue the other.) Shout out if you'd like me to run it against anything. Hesperian 01:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a great script you have there. Thanks for the info on that one redlink; I've neglected my work on Drosera for a while, having been stuck on finding good sources for an article on one species. Also been busy at work. I'll get to it one of these days. I'd be curious to know what redlink pops up most in Category:Utricularia. It'll probably be another one of the author abbreviation links. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the results aren't as interesting as I had anticipated, but maybe that will change once I start hitting really big categories... or once I fix the bug: these are the redlinks that occur more than once in that category, according to my output, but the counts are all wrong: Barnhart should have 24 not 7. I'll get back to you when I have something that ain't wrong. Hesperian 01:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now; I had fallen for the old put-a-g-in-front gotcha, so my pllimit=max was being ignored. See below for the top ten. Hesperian 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Link	Count
John Hendley Barnhart	24
Pellegr.	13
Sadashi Komiya	12
Frédéric de Girard	10
Luetzelb.	9
Nils Olof Valdemar Sylvén	7
François Pellegrin	6
George Henry Kendrick Thwaites	4
Alvaro Fernández-Pérez	4
Suess.	4
S.F.Blake	4
John McEwan Dalziel	4
R.D.Good	4

P.S. I just noticed your very friendly and patient message preempting by a few days my latest aggressive rant. It says something about the two of us, doesn't it? :-( Hesperian 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Barnhart is a stub I've been meaning to do for a while now, but didn't know how important it was to that genus. I saw your changes to WP:CAT and fully support it. The previous wording was inane and being picked up as something to mindlessly follow. Sometimes I'm too timid with things like that; if I had received no responses, I probably would have dropped it. Ah well. Thanks again :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. Now that that bug is fixed, my Flora of Western Australia run has D. sect. Erythrorhiza running 15th behind 14 Banksia redlinks. There's some systemic bias for you. Hesperian 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Speaking of... I also left a message for WP:TRAINS when I noticed a new defaultsort on an article I created. Went to them to question it and haven't followed through. Care to take a look at my argument there and let me know if I'm wrong? --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I've always taken the view that DEFAULTSORT should not be used as syntactic sugar; i.e. a coding shortcut that lets you order your categories in the fewest possible number of bytes. It should be used to define a fallback sort order that is sensible and explicable no matter what categories the article ends up being put into in future. This scheme fails that dismally. The situation reminds me of Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 4#inappropriate DEFAULTSORT values.

Hesperian 03:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I did flora of Australia. A dryandra tops it with 15... unless you add together "A.R.Bean" (12), "Tony Bean" (5) and "A. R. Bean" (2). (Okay, I'll stop bothering you now) Hesperian 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pompeii worm

I thought you just might display more intelligence. Your reverts are more in line with the moronic behaviour one expects from Hesperian and Jenuk. Did you even bother reading the reference? Rotational (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the discussion you cited. A conversation between a few editors two years ago with no clear agreement does not consensus make. The clear consensus comes from the preference by thousands of editors who place lead images into infoboxes. The current practice establishes the consensus. If you don't like it, challenge it in a rational and calm discussion. If you're not going to challenge it, then please follow established practice. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of the thousands of editors who place lead images in infoboxes, the vast majority do so not because it is their preference, but rather because the Manual of Style suggests they should, and they assume (quite wrongly) that the guideline was democratically/consensually arrived at after much learned discussion by many editors. One knows by now that this image is totally false, and that in the main these guidelines are even now being foisted upon the WP community by a handful of individuals. "In the original proposal on 10 March 2006 by Kirill Lokshin he writes "Infobox templates are a broad group of templates commonly used at the top of an article", oddly this rather puzzling observation later becomes a cornerstone of the infobox creed. Puzzling, since he doesn't say where his statistical sample comes from. Rotational (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, since then it has become common practice and indeed placing an image above an infobox would likely draw the ire of the community, especially for stubby articles. You have two options: 1) Follow the existing convention or 2) Start a new discussion, post it on WP:CENT, and lobby for a change in the common practice or appropriate guideline. Further discussion with me on this topic isn't getting you anywhere. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right - discussion with you on any topic has never led to anything positive. Rotational (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ryan. I noticed you're the main author on {{Plants}} so I figured I'd ask...can you figure out what's wrong with Template:WikiProject Forestry? At present it's yielding this mess. Any thoughts? Guettarda (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it later this evening. If you want a faster response, User:Happy-melon might be able to respond before I can. Cheers, -Rkitko ^(talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That should do it. If I understand correctly, you wanted a quality scale but not an importance scale? If you decide to add an importance scale later, just add the following to the template:

|IMPORTANCE_SCALE    = yes
 |importance={{{importance|}}}

Then all you have to do is create those categories it's prodding you to create and it should all work. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I didn't actually create it (if I had I would have just ported {{Plants}}), but I did fail miserably in my attempt to clean it up. Guettarda (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)