User talk:512bits

Hello, 512bits, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you Miss Anna! I'll try to learn to sign my name now. 512bits (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For asking questions and seeking to learn more about the Wikipedia project. Most new editors go out and explore the "Wikiworld" and learn as they get mauled by any of the aggressive "WP:WikiFauna". Regards. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. I'm glad I'm going about it right so far. I've glad you and Anna, the first two people I've met here are two of the very nice types of WikiFauna. 512bits (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Well, I'm glad your first experience at Wikipedia has been nice. However, please be aware that you will eventually run into unsavory characters. As I wrote on my userpage, some Wikipedians are grumpy. Try to avoid them.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments. I'm glad you like plants; botany articles tend to be abandoned (nobody takes care of the plants). The reference situation is somewhat complicated. Look at the following link: ([1]). All you have to do is the following:

1. Find what kind of source you are trying to fix (book, thesis, website, etc.).
2. Copy-paste the appropriate template from the list in the link ([2]).
3. Fill-in the template with the appropriate information (sometimes you won't be able to "fill in" every single bit of information, but try your best to not leave any blanks).
4. Finally, close your citation with < ref > and < / ref> (without the spaces, or triple quotations).
5. Don't forget that your citation goes inside the body of the text (the web automatically will send it to "references" section on its own).

If you've done everything correctly, you should see your citation in the "references" section. Reference work is a very tedious job, which is why most people do not bother to do it. However, it is crucial for any work that a proper reference section accompanies it. I hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm somewhat anal and good at paying attention to detail so I think I'll like fixing up the references. So I'll get to work on the soybean references. Won't get far but let me know if I mess up. 512bits (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's a way to reuse references withour copying all that code. Looks simple to use too. But there's one in Japanese or Chinese. Can we use it? Is there someone here that can get the info we need for a good reference? 512bits (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to use it, but I don't know if it will work for you or not. So far you're doing great.

You can try to use the WP:RS/N to find someone who can help you out finding information for reference. Wikipedia has several of these "noticeboards" (each holding specific purposes), and they are generally a great way to find help during your time here at Wikipedia.

There is also the WP:RD/L, where Wikipedian language experts (of various languages) generally pop up from time to time and provide their help. One (unofficial) golden rule exists in these boards: Be concise (go straight to the point) and accept their comments as suggestions (don't get angry at what they may or may not tell you). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The userpage boxes are fun to use, and several styles exist. I did my page based on that of another user (simply copy-paste their format, and then add your own things to it). My best advice is to look at different users, check out which pages you like the most, and combine them to your liking (you can edit your userpage as many times as you want). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much of an expert on botany-related articles (aside from potatoes). I'd recommend you use the article Genetics as a model. If you need any help with research, contact me and I'll see if I can find the text you require. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I could also use ideas on how to go about improving it, if you have anything specific. Otherwise I'll just try to mimic Genetics as you suggest. 512bits (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For being such a good editor, and working in an area that really needs you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you very much Anna! 512bits (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Anna's award. I think Botany articles are generally non-controversial, which is probably also why so few people work on them, but that should allow you to work in them without problems. I'd like to see you become a prominent member in that field of research. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying a lot of people here like drama and controversy? Wow. I prefer peace and quiet, so looks like I picked a good area. 512bits (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just here, but life in general. By nature, most human beings like drama and controversy (and pay to see them on movies, television shows, etc.), and Wikipedia provides a certain degree of anonymity which allows them to act out their inner dreams. The point is to remember that Wikipedia is, ultimately, an educational project where we are all colleagues working to create a body of knowledge which present and future generations of individuals can use for their personal development. Not surprisingly, trying to get that through people's heads is a nearly impossible task.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agreed. It's sad though. Hopefully the drama queens will not bother me.512bits (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that y'all have the impression that botany articles are non-controversial. Perhaps most are. There's a certain amount of "animated discussion" (as cricket commentators sometimes call it) at Wikiproject Plants whenever questions of botanical nomenclature arise. There's even more of that sort of "lively exchange" between people from there and some zoologists, and it turns out that this is because botanical and zoological nomenclature are mutually incomprehensible. Some day, Wikipedia might succeed in explaining the differences so well that we'll all be happy, but that day is still some distance away. In the meantime we can only choose which battles to fight, and help one another out occasionally. Best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 13:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 512bits. You have new messages at Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	A big smile
	For your efforts to not only improve Wikipedia, but to keep the atmosphere pleasant for other editors. It is very much appreciated. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's good to meet nice people here.512bits (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Abu al-Abbas al-Nabati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andalusian (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) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sometimes bots are good.512bits (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 512bits, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like duplication of the helpdesk.11:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It is similar to the Helpdesk as both are styled to answer questions. The difference is that the Teahouse provides peer support to new editors, and helps them become accustomed to wikipedia's culture. I can see you have hundreds of edits since you got started last month, and you seem to be doing fine, but just know that the Teahouse resource is available if you'd like to give it a try. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at last providing a use for the old edition of Plant Physiology by Taiz and Zeiger that has been sitting on my shelf unused for several years. The references that they give for the discovery that night length was also important are:

Hamner, K.C. (1940). "Interrelation of light and darkness in photoperiodic induction". Botanical Gazette. 101 (3): 658–687.

Hamner, K.C.; Bonner, J. (1938). "Photoperiodism in relation to hormones as factors in floral initiation and development". Botanical Gazette. 100 (2): 388–431.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Nadiatalent (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!512bits (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self--added these to Photoperiodism article.512bits (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Botany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus (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) 10:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm checking the Botany article from time to time. You're doing a fantastic job so far. I don't know much about commons, but what Id o know that it is a place where the photos are made more easily open for other wikiprojects (such as from other languages) to use them. Once you upload your photos into commons, you can use them here in the English Wikipedia the same as you would a photo uploaded directly here. I generally simply upload the pictures I create here into the Wikipedia servers (though it is generally discouraged), but that is just because I am not much interested in creating a Commons account (added that I don't generally upload much images). However, if you are going to be uploading images several times, then it probably would be a good idea to create a commons account.

1. First, create a new account (use your WP username if you want): [3]
2. Next, upload your file: [4]
3. Then, fill out the details of your file, and license it for free use (anyone else can use it; however, you do retain certain rights such as having any reproduction of the image be referenced back to you as the author).
4. Finally, come back here to Wikipedia and use any image box to place your picture(s). Several styles exist. For example, the Demographics section in the Peru article has an image style which I placed (I copied it from another article). In the Pisco Sour article another image style can be viewed in the "Preparation" section. Others exist, but you have to look around.

I hope this helped! Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get to uploading them in the next few days. I still want to concentrate on Botany, you when you plan photos of stages of development, timing is critical, haha. If others have input, please let me know. 512bits (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points:

• It is much better to upload images directly to Commons. This makes them easily available to all the wikiprojects, including all the other language versions of Wikipedia. The only images that should be uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons are those which cannot be given the appropriate free licenses, e.g. images for which "fair use" is claimed.
• Before you upload an image, check that there isn't a good one there already. Searching at http://commons.wikimedia.org/ is a good way to start. Working through the category system is also useful in my experience. For example, to find if there's a photo of a particular species of cactus you could start at commons:Category:Cactaceae (note that if you put "commons:" first in a Wikipedia search box it goes to Commons).

One serious problem is that there's a lot of misidentification in the plant photos in Commons. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more comments: I put images into commons and have never put one directly into wikipedia, so I don't know how that works.

The misidentification problem in commons seems to be getting slightly better, but it is important to check very carefully (found one yesterday that was of Cilantro, but the file name is Celery, and I don't know what the procedure might be for getting consensus to move the image).

When you upload at commons the upload wizard never puts the category information on the photo, so you need to go back later, edit the file to remove the "uncategorized" template, and put in your own categories. The easiest way to find your photo again is probably through "my uploads".

After you have uploaded, the wizard gives you a handy string to use to call up your photo in wikipedia, or you can probably guess by looking at how other photos are used on wikipedia. Upper and lower case is very important (e.g., .jpg and .JPG are totally different). Spaces become underscores (or at least they can, perhaps one can get away with spaces sometimes, I'm not sure).

I upload photos that are my own work. Once when a friend donated one and I uploaded it, I had to ask him to send email to the people who patrol to convince them that he had donated it; it didn't save him any bother at all for me to do the uploading.

Lately, since cameras give bigger images, I don't think it is necessary to follow the advice that might pop up about donating the biggest and best image that you have: you could shrink the image and keep some pixels in case you want to use the photo for other purposes, perhaps even sell it. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Some points, if I may. There is no need for 512bits to create a commons account - it already exists, because of the Unified login feature.

The commons upload page at commons:Commons:Upload allows you to select categories, but it will immediately forget these if you then use the "Preview" button. The trick is to fill in the whole form except for the cats, preview it, and then select some cats and hit "Upload file".

Spaces and underscores in image names are always equivalent, just like Wikipedia article names; and for the same reason, upper and lower case are different except for the first character of the filename. More at Wikipedia:Page name. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. At first this looked overwhelming but now it doesn't look so bad, except for the licensing. 512bits (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing is a minefield if the photo is not genuinely one that you took yourself, or if it depicts some copyrighted item such as a published piece of text. The people at commons are known to stamp down hard if they get the slightest suspicion that copyright has been breached.

But if it is all your own work (a photo of a plant that you took yourself, for example), the easiest thing to do is to look in the licensing drop-down menu, and select "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (recommended)". Those are the licenses under which you submit textual content to Wikipedia, so they're 100% compatible with Wikipedia's aims. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Special:UploadWizard makes uploading as simple and user-friendly as it can be. You might want to give that a go first. SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like simple.512bits (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see [5] for my first upload efforts. Great set of tips guys, I used the Upload tool.512bits (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your overall good behavior and contributions are really a good sight to see here in Wikipedia. Keep this up and surely great rewards will come your way (the awards certainly speak for themselves). Thank you!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside matters of composition, focus, exposure etc. which others have commented on, the uploads to commons look good to me - the description and attribution are there, as are licensing and (after an initial hiccup) some categories. You may have noticed that another user has amended your descriptions slightly, but I don't see any need for further amendment. One small observation on that amended description: the link added by Wsiegmund is to the commons page Ficus carica, which does exist - it's like an article, but the commons people call it a "gallery". If that page didn't exist, it's an idea to link instead to the Wikipedia page; to do this from commons you add the Interwikimedia links prefix w:, as in [[w:Ficus carica]]. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's tips

Sorry for the late reply. Here are some more tips:

• You can make a category for your images at Wikicommons. I use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_by_User:Anna_Frodesiak for mine. That way you can see them all at once. This is useful because if somebody uploads a newer version of something you uploaded, then it vanishes from your watchlist. (I'm 99% sure this is true.)

• You can find images at Flickr to upload to Wikicommons: Go to flickr: http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/? Enter the searchword. At the bottom, check "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content " and the two teeny boxes below. Click "search". Anything that comes up is fair game. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna: if somebody uploads a new version over your own, in my experience it doesn't remove the page from your watchlist - it does, however, remove the page from your upload list. I uploaded four images on 24 June 2010, but only three of them are still in my upload list - this one has dropped out. When this happened, there was an entry in my watchlist beginning "(Upload log)", with the new uploader's name against it.

@512bits: commons:Commons:Upload has an entry especially designed for Flickr images, second one down. Check commons:Commons:Flickr files before uploading from Flickr. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at my userpage: User:Anna Frodesiak under "Images". You will see such sites as http://www.ipmimages.org/ Many of the images at those sites are public domain. Lots of flora and fauna species. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on your first uploads

• Depth of focus. One of the important issues in closeup photos is getting a good depth of focus so that as much of the subject as possible is sharp. I see from the EXIF metadata that your pictures were taken at f/2.8. For closeups you need to use the smallest aperture possible on your camera (perhaps f/8 or f/16). This means you need to switch to "manual" mode (which I think your camera has) and set the aperture manually. A small aperture means a long exposure time, so even with image stabilization, you many need a tripod or some other means of support. It's a good idea then to use the delay timer feature.
• Colour. Digital cameras have "automatic colour balance". They often get shots mostly of greenery wrong – they assume the scene is too green and compensate for it by making the picture more purple. This doesn't seem to have happened with your shots, which is good. On the other hand, they are, in my view, over-saturated: I doubt that the real grass is as strongly green as in your pictures! There are usually settings to reduce saturation, which I recommend using for accurate botanical shots where you want the precise colour.
• Distractions. Advice which is easy to give, but often hard to follow, is to avoid distractions in your images. They can be removed later with a good image processing program, although it can be time consuming. (Compare my quick edit to one of your images with the original here. For a botanical illustration, I prefer the image with a more-or-less uniform background. However, judging images is a very personal matter!)

Closeup photography is endlessly fascinating to me, as I hope it will be to you. Small digital cameras make it so much more convenient that the heavy camera + lenses, flashes, etc. which I used to carry around! Learning to use your particular camera to its best advantage is definitely worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my yard is pretty green right now, it's early Spring and there's been lots of rain. For the modified picture, is there a way to overwrite my copy with yours on commons? 512bits (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, but I only photo-edited a small sized copy (as a demonstration), and I'd need to do it on the full size version. I'll have a look at it later if you prefer the background removed. I should say that I regularly fail to notice distracting items until after I have downloaded the photo to my computer, so I spend too much time on this kind of editing! Some people have a better "eye" for these things than others. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To overwrite an existing commons image, you go to the relevant image page (n.b. on commons, not the page mirrored to Wikipedia), and at the bottom of the "File history" section there will be a link titled "Upload a new version of this file". This will allow just the image itself to be uploaded, preserving the description, licensing, categories etc. As I mentioned to Anna Frodesiak above, if the person doing this was not the previous uploader, the image will move from their upload log to yours. If the amended image is radically different, the original uploader might complain, so it's often the practice to upload afresh under a different name. To do this from commons:Commons:Upload, select "It is a derivative work of one or several files from Commons" which goes to a different upload tool that allows you to select one or more existing files from which the attribution, licensing, cats etc. will be copied. I used that when I cropped down this to make this. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC) amended Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you seemed happy for your original to be replaced, I have now uploaded a version which uses cloning to remove the distracting background. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little fig on your fig tree! My fig tree still has only dark brown bud scales showing. This will be a big year for it, when it either proves that it can fruit outside in Toronto, or gets a demerit point. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get fruit on a fig tree in Toronto, I shall be very impressed! I lost all my young figs overwinter on a potted bush kept in a greenhouse in the English Midlands (minimum temperature this year about −6 °C). I've seen (and eaten) fantastic figs on large trees in Vancouver, but that's a different climate zone! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be impressed too. This tree has survived two winters and when in the house has produced little brown figs, but the question is whether it can do both at the same time. It was labelled as cultivar 'Chicago'. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closeup photography is absolutely wonderful. My digital camera is 3 years old now, but it does wonderful automatic focus with the lens 2 cm from the subject. In my opinion the camera makers are completely on the wrong tack concentrating on face detection for portrait photography (that reminds me of the need to test face detection on Viola flowers!). Nadiatalent (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help folks! Yea, the little fig is a cute fellow isn't he? 512bits (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object. I'm short-tempered, impatient, a bit cynical, and very opinionated. In short, not very nice, heh, but thanks. Glad to see you're adjusting to Wikipedia well. If you need help, just ask. Cheers. :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's me too. We'll get along great. 512bits (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The rose of Jericho
	Thanks for your work on botany - I am scared of broad articles like that, but I'll try and do something if I can. SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I like working the botany article. 512bits (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.

They'll indefblock you too, Mr. Doogooder!76.195.87.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Let them. Then you couldn't harass me anymore.512bits (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why some article are under a common name and others under the scientific name: some people think that scientific names are difficult and make the encyclopedia inaccessible. There is still quite a legacy of that attitude, and it can be quite a lot of work to change an article. I strongly believe that what wikipedia needs is useful explanations that will make the scientific names more accessible.

When I see something like that, I check to see if I can find that there are multiple common names for the same thing (and that is almost always the case), and usually introduce some citations as the first step. If I think it might be contentious, I'll explain on the talk page and then wait a couple of days. The move procedure can require intervention by an admin (if there's a redirect page that has any edit history in the way). Finally, it's necessary to fix all the "what links here" pages, and that part can be a lot of work.

Sometimes there's evidence of some silly past arguments about which common name to use for an article because people in different places may know it by just one name, but it's a different name from what people somewhere else use. Citations are very helpful.

There are some common names that don't correspond to just one scientific name, so it can be reasonable to have an extra page; Cardamom is an example. Banana says that it is the common name for plants of the genus Musa and for the fruit that they produce (which I think is a bit odd, but I won't argue with it).

Some people would disagree, but I think it is important to list all the common names. The most dramatic example of this that I've seen is "wild parsnip"; there are documents that advise people to gather and eat wild parsnip, but doing that can be lethal! Nadiatalent (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! It's not as simple as one may think huh?512bits (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the main reason it hasn't all been fixed, I think. On another note, I'm sorry that I didn't see the above until just now. I hope the various blocks have solved the problem. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia has already made a good attempt at explaining it. WP:COMMONNAME explains this well for articles in general. If the common name of a plant is what it is known by then that should be the title - e.g. potato vs. Solanum tuberosum, carrot vs. Daucus carota subsp. sativus etc. When it comes to more obscure species then it is better to use the binomial, even if common names exist, because the common names can be ambiguous or only apply in a relatively small area. The binomial is the same everywhere - hence Simarouba amara rather than any of these. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone.512bits (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A common technique is to set up some redirects, either from common name to scientific name such as giant hogweedgiant hogweed, or vice versa - see Lathyrus odoratusLathyrus odoratus. That way the search is simplified for somebody who knows one name but not the other. One article may have many redirects, see those for Heracleum mantegazzianum --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Botany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biotic (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) 10:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.512bits (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for my input on your change. Linnaeus wasn't the first taxonomist; there is an interesting section at Taxonomy#History of Taxonomy that could perhaps be directly linked from the Botany page. About the earlier version that said that Linnaeus was the first to create artificial keys: probably the best reference on that material is written by a friend of mine, so it would be unethical for me to take a serious role in publicizing her work in Wikipedia. I'd have to read it again myself to see if there were serious artificial keys before Linnaeus (I mostly remember how brilliant Lamarck's keys are, the same Lamarck who comes in for some very rude remarks because his views were so different from Darwin's. His work was later than Linnaeus'). The citation is Scharf, S. (2009). "Identification Keys, the "Natural Method," and the Development of Plant Identification Manuals". Journal of the History of Biology. 42 (1): 73–117. Unfortunately, it is pay-walled. Let me know if you'd like to read more of it. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've reworked the paragraph again and used her as a ref. Pls review. If we've can't finish the rework easily, we've probably need a full copy. Can you get a full copy if we need it? 512bits (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you get in touch with me through the email address at the bottom of my web page? Nadiatalent (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent.512bits (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to revive the Plant article COTM, and since you're a member of WikiProject Plants, you're being notified about this hopeful revival. Please feel free to propose articles for collaboration, and thanks for your consideration! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current WikiProject Plants collaboration article is Carnivorous plant. Last month's collaboration was: (none). To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Perseverence award
	Hi X'200', congratulations on bringing the Botany article up to a standard where you've decided to nominate it for GA status! Nadiatalent (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! No one has reviewed it yet, but thanks! 512bits (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 512, I've retired from the English wikipedia, but am still active at Commons. Talk to you there? Nadiatalent (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on the GA review of Botany and will be starting it in the next couple of days. It is an important topic and on first glance the article looks good. I look forward to working with you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the success in the Botany GA review. You have not edited in a while, but hopefully will return when you see this in your talk. Regards. MarshalN20 | Talk 01:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sure could use your help in expanding the Abu al-Abbas al-Nabati page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you might notice that the sources I added to the article are formatted differently than the way your originally were. Both are acceptable and usable means here on Wikipedia. For the sake of consistency, do you think there should only be one citation format or would keeping both be alright? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should definitely be consistent. 512bits (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to see if we can make the botany article better. If anyone has ideas, let me know. 512bits (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured Article Review is time-consuming and somewhat stressful (the reviewers will analyze every small detail in the article). I would like to serve as a co-nominator of the Botany article with you, but (since you have the greater understanding of the sources) would need you to be active in the review process (a sudden wiki-break would be disastrous). I can provide assistance with general grammar/structure problems and template fixes. What do you think?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SURE! But there are a few things I need to fix that even I can see before we begin. I'll need, oh, maybe about a week, ok? 512bits (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. You can take as long as you need prior to the start of the FA review.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am running into a few discussions with the folk at the arbitration committee, and this may delay the help I promised to provide you. However, once the issue is resolve, I will return to fulfill the promise. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Arbitration doesn't sound fun. 512bits (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have done some more work on the article (see talk) and I am near done I think, unless you see major problems or areas of omission. Could you have a look now and let me know what you think of it? Plantsurfer (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! It's much better. I'll post my thoughts on the Talk:Botany page.512bits (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Every organism is dependent upon certain elements of its environment and in competition with other elements of its environment": perhaps "components" would be a better word, since elements may suggest chemical elements such as chlorine. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Doing now. 512bits (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of changes to Botany over the weekend, and have added several new references. I would be grateful if you could convert them to sfn format. I am sorry to leave this to you, but I just don't understand that system - perhaps you can give me a tutorial on how to write these sfn references. Plantsurfer (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Botany seems to have been fairly stable for a couple of weeks now. Is there anything holding up progress now? Let me know if I can help in any way. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Peter wants to add stuff but he said to move ahead, see his talk page. I guess that means that peer review. He'll still be able to adjust things, of course. 512bits (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now copy-edited the epigenetics section - you did good, but there was some repetition - and have added a chunk of Biochemistry, incorporating a bare outline of photosynthesis and some of the points made by Kelvinsong. I would be grateful if you could take a look and let me have feedback on it. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad I did ok. Sure I'll look it over. Will fix refs too.512bits (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work on the refs. One point- the first name of PE Kolattukudy is Pappachan, not Peter! I think the article looks great now. The main doubt in my mind is whether Praemontius's comment about jargon has been adequately dealt with. A lot of changes have been made, but I will look it over once more. I think we should press Praemontius for an opinion on FA status. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. When you're done, let's ask him. 512bits (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am about done now, or at least I am sufficiently word-blind to need the feedback of others to see where problems still exist. I think it would be good to get feedback from Praemontius now. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in Further reading Crawford RMM Studies in Plant Survival. Crawford produced anew book in 2008 that is like an update. The details are: Crawford RMM (2008) Plants at the Margin. Ecological limits and climate change. Cambridge University press isbn 978 0 521- 62309-4 478 pages. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. added it. 512bits (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAntastic! Can't wait to see how it is received. My last edit inserted a new ref. to Haberlandt. I would be grateful if you could clean it up. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]