This is an archive of past discussions with User:First Light. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia, First Light! I am WBOSITG and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Thanks. The reason I'm not adding edit summaries is because these are minor edits where I'm just adding a bit of wikicode that fixes the Conservation Status in the taxoboxes. Because there are hundreds/thousands of these that need updating, adding an edit summary to each one would make a tedious project take much longer. I hope this is ok. Is there a way to have an automated edit summary when doing a large batch of these things? First Light (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, First Light, I saw on your user page that you plan to take on the monumental task of improving John Muir. Great choice! I wanted to offer my services if you need them; I've written two Featured Articles on American wilderness advocates (Bob Marshall and Robert Sterling Yard), and although my "concentration" is mainly the second generation of environmentalists, Muir's legacy has played an important part in my research. I have multiple sources and resources at hand, so if you need anything, just let me know! I'm also handy at copy-editing and general MOS concerns. In short, I would love to see this article promoted to GA and even FA one day and I'm willing to help. :) Best of luck, María(habla conmigo) 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is certainly important enough to warrant improving, though I'm a bit intimidated by just how much improving is needed. Looking at your Featured and Good Articles, I wonder who would be helping whom. I think one (maybe next) step would be to begin a discussion on the talk page, suggesting needed improvements to bring it up to GA or FA level, and seeing if others are interested. What do you think? In my opinion, the article at least needs inline references, some reorganization into smaller sections, and expansion of the more important parts of his life (his fight for Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy; his long-term legacy and influence; his overriding philosophy; and more). Some general advice would be appreciated, considering you've written two similar (wilderness advocate biographies) Featured Articles. To summarize, I'm not sure where to begin :-). This would be a long-term project for me, rather than a dash to the finish line, but yes it is something I'm interested in working on—so your advice would be welcomed. Thanks, First Light (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Some kind of a discussion on the talk page would be a great first step, I think. I typically spend some time doing research before actually editing a specific topic, but there's already quite a few great sources listed in the "References" section to point the way. I'll look to see if I can add additional ones that I may have access to. I think you have the right idea as far as organization and expansion goes; I too would love to see a more extensive biography and a lengthy discussion of his legacy and influence, but it would seem that you know more about Muir than I do, which is great. Perhaps once a to-do list is generated, we can decide where to go from there? I'm not interested in a quick push for GA or FA, either, and I do have other projects to finish first, but I'd love to see this ball rolling in the right direction! María(habla conmigo) 12:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice - the next step for me is to borrow some of the best biographical sources, since most of my understanding of Muir comes through years of osmosis, and through his own writings. One last question - could you recommend a couple of the best general biographies of Muir? That would help me get a better idea of where the expansion needs to happen, and with what sources. This will start slow, but I do intend to stick with this. Thanks - First Light (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Some readily available biographies that may be of help (some are available @ Google Books):
Miller, Sally M (1993). John Muir, life and work. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Wolfe, Linnie Marsh (1945). Son of the Wilderness: The Life of John Muir. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. (awarded a Pulitzer Prize, apparently -- has an updated 1978 edition)
I'm gearing up to work on Aldo Leopold and Benton MacKaye, but let me know if/when you need some assistance with Muir. He will certainly be less difficult to research than these little known Wilderness Society types. :) María(habla conmigo) 12:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just discovered you are working on this too; that's great! :-) I reckon I've done nearly 40,000 of them; which is fair enough since it was me who caused the problem in the first place :-( Only a few thousand to go! Hesperian06:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Eeeek! 40,000? I was feeling quite pleased with myself for doing a measly 2,000. I'll get back into it in a few days if there are still any left. A question - I was sticking to birds because I wasn't sure that this applied to all plants and creatures. Are there any limits on who can get the status system from Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter? Or any limits on the different Conservation Status types? — First Light (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
2000 might not seem like much to you, but I've certainly seen the impact. My AWB runs are going faster because so many of the pages I visit have already been done. Either it's you, or someone else is working on this as well as us two.
If you've been mindlessly adding "status-system=IUCN3.1" to all the birds in that category, without actually checking, then you might have introduced the occasional error, because some of those rankings might have been under some other ranking system, or under the old IUCN2.3 ranking. I wouldn't worry too much, though, because the bird conservation people have got themselves really well organised, and the vast majority of birds have an up-to-date IUCN3.1 ranking. You could probably count your errors on one hand. On the other hand (pun not intended), if you added "status-system = IUCN3.1" to any other group, it would be a disaster! You really need to work from the IUCN list for other groups, as there are many still under IUCN2.3, and many more that don't have an IUCN ranking yet. Hesperian06:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the education. I also got the impression earlier that birds were more straightforward, so I'll stick with them. With my first bird updates I checked with the latest IUCN rankings and their status were all confirmed, so I stopped taking that step early on. I also stopped adding the status system to birds in the Extinct category when I noticed someone reverting one of those. So thanks for confirming that I'm doing more good than harm! That little image does add alot to the articles, because it gives so much context to the Conservation status. First Light (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your picture caught my attention! It is so beautiful. It would match perfectly an article about rockrose in our Paracelsus magazine.
Paracelsus magazine is a product of global cooperation, with people from Europe, North and South America, and India volunteering their time and working without pay. The objective of the magazine is to blend ancient and modern wisdom of medicine and holistic healing. The magazine is published monthly in three different languages: German, Spanish, and English; it is read all on every continent of the world. It reaches physicians, alternative practitioners and ordinary people.
Although we sell the magazine, we are a non profit organisation and the printing coasts are hardly covered.
Would you be so generous and give us your permission to print this photograph? If yes, could you tell us how the reference to the picture should be?
We thank you in advance for your consideration and reply
and send you our very best wishes.
PS: For more information please visit our homepage: www.paracelsus-center.ch
(the page is under construction at the moment)
By all means feel free to use the photo in any way you like. There is no need to attribute it to me, and my understanding of the licensing here says you don't need to give credit to Wikipedia. I've also just uploaded another similar photo, which you can see on the right, which you can also use as you like. Your magazine seems like a very worthy venture. Good luck, First Light (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Plants! Our scope includes any and all taxa of plants, botanists, and botany topics. We're glad to have you working with us on our project!
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
Images: There are articles that need images. You can search Wikimedia Commons for images. When you find one, add it to the Wikipedia article in the taxobox and remove the "needs-photo=yes" parameter from the project banner on the talk page of the article. You could also help identify plant photos on Commons.
Taxobox: We also have articles that need taxoboxes. See the taxobox usage guide for information on how to add a taxobox. When complete, don't forget to remove the "needs-taxobox=yes" parameter from the talk page banner.
Heck, there's so much to it, it is hard to know where to start. You are beginning a long journey: I started at the same level of knowledge as you about three years ago, and I've still plenty left to learn (thank goodness).
Firstly, continue with the copy-paste approach; we all do it.
Regarding my edit, I am gradually moving all the flowering plants over to the APG II system, which is pretty much universally accepted now. The old higher taxonomy isn't wrong; it is just outdated. So for now, I suggest you don't worry about it. Continue copy-pasting from a closely related plant, and if you end up with an outdated taxonomy, it will get updated eventually.
The authority is usually not hard to find. Once a name has been published it is not supposed to be published again, so most of the plant names you will come across will only have a single authority. But in the bad old days before the internet, when botanical knowledge was transmitted solely through the circulation of journals, a botanist might publish a name for a plant, unaware that that same name had previously been published for some other plant. In that case there would be two authorities for the name, and you would have to figure out which one is the valid name for your plant. Usually the invalid name is extremely obscure, and a simple google search will make it clear which you should be using.
Your Salvia microphylla example is very unusual in that it is a difficult case. I've found five separate author citations for the name, but two are obscure, and two are pretty much equivalent. It comes down to a choice between Kunth and Benth, as you've said. I think Benth is an error—probably made in a major database like GRIN, and thence propagated out into the web. It doesn't appear in IPNI, and I haven't been able to find any full bibliographic citation for it. On the other hand, it is easy to track down a full bibliographic citation for Kunth: this name was published on page 295 of volume 2 of Kunth's Nova genera et species plantarum quas in peregrinatione ad plagam aequinoctialem orbis novi collegerunt Bonpland et Humboldt, which can be seen in all its glory here.
Don't feel discouraged by the complexity of the Salvia microphylla case—it will be rare for you to encounter such problems, and when you do, feel free to ask at WT:PLANTS or my talk page.
I don't think I've helped much here. You're doing fine, really. I'm happy to answer further questions or check over anything you do; just ask.
Hi, First Light. Not sure I could say anything more that Hesperian didn't cover. One thing to mention that you can keep in the back of your mind is the possibilities for disambiguation pages when you encounter a lot of synonymy and multiple authorities, such as Stylidium androsaceum, an extreme example of what Hesperian was saying about one name being used more than once (in this example, once in early December 1839 by John Lindley and just weeks later by de Candolle). If anything else comes up and I can help, let me know :-) Great job so far! Cheers, Rkitko(talk)23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. By the way, my next big batch of taxobox updates will be the Lamiales, so I will be hitting that article some time soon, probably this week. Hesperian00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've finished the assessment. I have made some suggestions for you, and did a quick edit to point you in the right direction. I have placed the article on hold. Normally the hold is for 7 days, but as this needs so much work, and you have been working alone, I have extended that to the end of January to give you a chance to get some real work done. I would suggest you make use of internet resources, and also look at the other Wikipedia garden stub articles to see what you can bring into the Cottage garden. Good luck. If you need any help or advise at any time, please don't hesitate to give me a call! Warm regards SilkTork *YES!17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Tree peony
After moving Rock's peony to the far more commonly used Paeonia rockii, I discovered that even more sources call it Paeonia suffruticosa. But then, in China maybe it's still rockii. And some say rockii is a subspecies of suffruticosa, others say it's a synonym. In other words, I'm confused. Is there a definitive source? Even IPNI left me a bit confused. Thanks. First Light (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can help. These things are often beyond me unless I have a recent monograph or know a lot about the subject. I know you have some knowledge of botany, but some of these taxonomy terms can get confusing quickly, so I'll just go step by step.
IPNI says "basionym: Paeoniaceae Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii". The article on basionym may help here. Factoring in information from this link as well, it looks like P. rockii was described as the subspecies of P. suffruticosa in 1990 by S.G.Haw & Lauener and then elevated to species level in 1992 by T.Hong & J.J.Li, but their description must not have been "good enough" or lacked something the ICBN required, which is why this IPNI entry exists. The "ex" means usually that the authors before the "ex" simply suggested the species name or named it without a full botanical description that the ICBN requires (including a description in latin in a peer-reviewed journal with wide-enough circulation to be considered authoritative. Complicated, eh?). So this means that D.Y.Hong validly published the species P. rockii in 1998. That's the state of affairs at IPNI.
eFloras.org uses P. rockii. Which sources are calling it P. suffruticosa? Are they older than 1992? If so, then that's likely the reason. I'd say the correct species is P. rockii unless I've overlooked something very obvious. I'll keep looking and see what I can find. I hope this helps initially. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw it in this 2004 book, The Genus Paeonia, p. 204.[1] I also found a couple of websites that supported it, but it looks like what you are showing is more authorotative. And that move I did - for such an overwhelming case, should I still have put a note on the talk page, or requested moves page? Thanks. First Light (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. It could be that the author of that book is just more taxonomically conservative? With cultivated species, it is difficult. Perhaps placing a general plea for help at WT:PLANTS may bring someone more knowledgeable. I know at least User:Hardyplants is a skilled horticulturalist. I don't know if this is Hardyplants's area of expertise at all, but it's worth a shot. Others are better at digging up information than me, so I'd definitely suggest asking for help with the project. And yes, I think your move was bold, which is good, and as you saw it you had no reason to worry about the move. I would have done the same. It's a little more testy right now that we have the discussion going on surrounding the naming convention, but I think you were fine. Badagnani was also right to revert it if he disagreed: WP:BRD. So now we discuss. I listed the move discussion at WP:RM and hope that we can get to the bottom of both problems in the process! It seems that there are many common names for this species: tree peony, Rock's peony, Rock's variety peony. It's all too messy and there doesn't seem to be a single most common name. This is a classic case of why WP:NC (flora) was first constructed. Well, good night for now! Cheers, Rkitko(talk)04:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Page usage in cite book
This is so minor that I hesitated to bring it up but what the hey. After fixing the page numbering in Salvia dorisiana I noticed that you have predrafted templates for cite book with the same problem. They recently changed cite book to automatically place p. or pp., and there are now two separate plurality based parameters: |pages=12-13 produces pp. 12-13, while |page=12 produces p. 12. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've created a few new cats and done some cat sorting. Gardening still needs a bit of sorting, but I've made a decent start. See what you think. And Happy New Year! SilkTork *YES!12:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of categorizing and tagging, and all perfectly done and needed. I'm starting to get a glimmer of understanding of that area (WikiProject Horticulture), and hope to get more involved there soon. Happy New Year to you - I hope it's a very rich and fulfilling one. First Light (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Page move question
I tried moving Common sage to Salvia officinalis, but couldn't do it (I think because the Salvia officinalis page had a category added to it, even though it's only a redirect). Based on my note on the talk page, this is one of the more obvious candidates for a move. Do I go ahead and put it on the Requested Moves page, or can any admin just move it at my request? On another subject, I notice you cleaning up after me on my salvia articles. If you can point me in the right direction, I would be happy to save you the work. If I understand right, the "name=" is unnecessary? Thanks. First Light (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, you can either put it under uncontroversial moves at WP:RM or just ask an admin. I went ahead and moved it for you. I've been meaning to say nice work on the Salvia articles, by the way. Do you plan on filling out the entire genus? That would be quite a task! I just noticed that some of the species pages you're creating aren't linked to from List of Salvia species; it might be a good idea to go through your Salvia contributions and link all the ones that aren't yet. Yes, the name = parameter isn't necessary when the binomial parameter is used and you want the name parameter to display the species name. This only formats properly with italics when the entry in the binomial is the same as the page title. As a bonus, we're now getting italicized page titles when you do it this way. No more annoyingly nonitalicized species and genera plastered across the top of the article! The other small edit I've been making is category sorting. For such a large genus, it's a good idea to write [[Category:Salvia|officinalis]] so that the articles are sorted alphabetically under headings in the category. Makes them easier to find. See Category:Utricularia for an example of a large genus where this makes sense. Note that you should probably sort by lowercase species epithet. Uppercase sorting will display differently in the category. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and the move - even though this one was uncontroversial, it seems that plants are controversial these days. I do have the fantasy of filling out the Salvia genus. Overly ambitious, I know, since there are so many hundreds. I figure if I average about one a day, it might eventually get done. I had my eye on the List of Salvia species, and will get there soon. I'll also go through all the Salvia articles and do the category sorting, as it answered my next question about the best way to organize a large genus. One more question - what do you do about hybrids? There are several notable salvia hybrids in horticulture. Salvia 'Celestial Blue' is an example of just one, but should they have their own article? Taxobox? Sometimes the parents can only be guessed, since they cross so freely—these crosses pop up like weeds in my garden. Or one article for all the hybrids? Thanks again, First Light (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, certainly. The hybrid or cultivar articles can stand on their own and many already do. The way I typically do it is if the hybrid is a natural hybrid and hasn't been named as a cultivar or if the hybrid is a cultivar but has no cultivar name, I title the article at the hybrid name and give it a taxobox. User:Mgiganteus1 has done a fantastic job with our Nepenthes hybrids, e.g. Nepenthes × alisaputrana (note the use of the × instead of x). If it's a hybrid cultivar or just a cultivar of a species, or hybrid of unknown origin with a cultivar name, I title it at the cultivar name and use {{Infobox Cultivar}} (here are example usages). One article for all of them might be interesting, with links that go into more depth for the more notable cultivars. You can, of course, do whatever you think works best and develop your own scheme since you know the scope of the work and how many cultivars will be notable. Hope that helps! Cheers, Rkitko(talk)22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all the good advice. I was already leaning in the direction of an article with Salvia hybrids, and having articles on the notable ones would be good also. First Light (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork, Cottage garden has about doubled in size (and quality, I think) since it was first submitted. Any more thoughts? Before I tackle the references/footnotes, I wanted to be sure I go in the right direction. The options are 1. To follow the original approach, which was footnotes that only mentioned author and page number - and then I would add a link to each book in the reference section to the Google book. 2. Going with a Google book link and full book citation in the footnote for the first mention of each book. The first might be more traditional for print research, the second seems to be more common on Wikipedia. I'll do the second if you think that would be better. Either way, they need some cleanup - I'm just waiting so I do it right and just once. Thanks for all your feedback. Whether it reaches GA or not, I think it's now one of the best articles in WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. First Light (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked yet, but wanted to make a comment on refs. For GA it doesn't matter what format you use, just as long as there is citing. It's in FA that they are anal about such matters - and even then, it's usually in the head of the FA reviewer, as the criteria do allow a mix of linked and non-linked citations. The most useful form of citing is 100% the sort that takes people directly to the page via Google Books if Google Books has it - if it doesn't, then no worries. There is absolutely no need to have a consistent approach to sourcing. If you can Google Book 60%, but not the other 40% then do the 60% and every reader, except those with obsessive compulsive disorder, will love you for it. Also, Wiki guidelines do encourage linking: Wikipedia:Cite#Links_and_ID_numbers. SilkTork *YES!22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That does look good! I've not yet read it all through, but what I skimmed was impressive. I'll settle down to it tomorrow night and give it a decent assessment. Nice one! SilkTork *YES!22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Salvia
Hi! I hope you don't mind, I've been poking around at several Salvia articles you created over the past few days, hoping to do enough work to get them to DYK. I'm new at editing plant articles (usually over the other side of the fence with the chloroplast-less organisms :P) so if I'm doing some things wrong, feel free to gimme a whack on the head. :) Shrumster (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your work! I'm very happy to see those stubs growing into DYK-worthy articles. I'll see if I can fluff them up any more, like I did with Salvia involucrata (though I think that one had more possibilities than some of the others I've been creating). I'm an unlearned gardener, and not schooled in the study of any organisms (as I see you are), so feel free to slap me with a trout as needed. First Light (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, right. I think that's what I meant to say. :P Didn't realize "wide" kinda only really implies a horizontal range. Shrumster (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
On February 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salvia indica, 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.
The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I think the important message is that there is some validity to both points of view even if consensus has lined up behind only one. There is a good case for common names and scientific ones, but the importance of those reasons aren't the same for all subjects. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Great! Take your time, you won't be rushed any by me, I promise. I have the article watchlisted, so just ask whenever you need an extra pair of eyes. I'm very much looking forward to seeing it expand and improve. :) María(habla conmigo) 04:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Birds March newsletter
The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
re:in over my head
Pretty darn good for someone new to the area. I've given it a rough copyedit. Other comments:
The last paragraph of the Description section is about cultivation not morphology. I recommend moving it into a new "Cultivation" section.
You might consider adding a "Distribution and habitat" section, which would take the stuff on how its distribution was long unknown, and the discovery of wild populations. And it would be nice to have some information on the habitat it grows in, both macro (desert, I presume) and micro (dune swales? dune tops? sandy soil, or stony?)
Also there is nothing on its ecology.—Any special xeromorphic adaptations? How long does it live? Does it flower at a certain age or size, or in response to rain? What pollinates it? Can it self-pollinate? Does anything eat it? Does it suffer from any diseases? What triggers seed germination? How long does the seed live? Seedling survival rates? I could go on but I think you get the message. These are just examples of the interesting ecological questions I can think to ask of this plant. Probably much of it is unanswerable.
You obviously are out to undermine the Texas Gulf Coast agricultural communities discovery of toxic plants & dangers to livestock. I am re-publishing the known facts about the genus Salvia, and removing the unreferenced material about garden flowering. Don't vandalize. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
None of your references even mention Salvia lyrata in them. Not even once. I tried to help you, and couldn't find a single online reference to Salvia lyrata being toxic to animals. Please, find a Wikipedia Reliable Source (WP:RS) and then add information to the article based on that source. I've moved this thread to the article talk page so other users can comment, since it's an issue about content. First Light (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You must observe the 3 edit rule. You have erased referenced material valid to the encyclopedic content of the article, and left flowery gardening topics without any sources. I have restored the referenced valid content. Wikipedia administration will follow up. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I've responded at the mediation page. I've tried to help you by looking for references on Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and jstor.org, and could find nothing remotely suggesting Salvia lyrata's toxicity. When there is something published in a reliable source, it can certainly appear in the article. If your claims are true, then it's just a matter of time. In the meantime, Rkitko is a longtime respected plant editor and admin on Wikipedia. You can't go wrong by listening to his advice on your talk page. First Light (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Salvia lyrata
Thanks for stepping in. If you have any references unavailable to us civilians which support any of StationNT5Bmedia's claims, I would be more than happy to see it in the article. I tried to help him, and couldn't find a thing (I have no need to be 'right', I just want the article to be correct) . First Light (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I, too, just want the article to be right. My impression is that, while it may be true and may be published, StationNT5Bmedia should provide us with the reference instead of vague citations of his/her discussions with local organizations and obviously our policies and guidelines back us up on that decision. I searched briefly for the species and some other keywords in the databases my employer grants me access to, but I was unable to quickly find any information verifying the toxicity claim. I can search again and might do that this evening. Also, sorry for not getting back to you on Salvia tingitana. I did look it over and everything seems fine. Hesperian's comments above are much more succinct than I would have been able to produce. Did you have any specific concerns in the History or Taxonomy sections? Like in relation to using the proper terminology? Like I said, everything seemed fine to me. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - since I couldn't find even a hint of S. lyrata toxicity, I was a bit dubious, but would be happy to proven wrong. I overreacted to StationNT5Bmedia's aggressive approach—now I see that's just his style. With the Salvia tingitana article, I was just looking for an expert pair of eyes in case I messed something up. Hesperian gave it a good look, and it seems fine. First Light (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Salvia tingitana
On March 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salvia tingitana, 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.
The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk15:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I also found this book reference (which I added to the article since it's a reliable source) to be helpful.[2] It explains the difference in north vs. south India, and the origin of the difference. First Light (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Salvia divinorum
Hi SallyScot, as you've surely noticed, I'm trying to bring the botany and taxonomy aspects of the article up to the level of other plant and Salvia articles, in both detail and style. There were some things that were in error, according to reliable sources and the leading S. divinorum botanists. I think this will help add yet more credibility to the rest of the article, which is very well done. It's refreshing to see the deeper aspects of the plant's background presented to people who come to the article. One hopes that it will help users to get more out of their experience, and to use it with more wisdom. Feel free to let me know if I am missing some angle, as you seem to have a lot of S. divinorum sources and resources available. (P.S. I couldn't get the footnote link for the Marushia article to work - I found another version of it online). First Light (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi First Light, I've been away for the most part while you've been doing recent edits, but my first impressions from initial scan through is that they've been worthwhile additions. When I've time I'll go through in more detail, read up some more, see what I can learn and if there's anything else to add. In the meantime I note that some newly added references aren't in the article's preferred "Shortened footnotes" style. I have to say it took me a while to get used to this too - the citation style wasn't first introduced to the article by myself - but, after getting my head around it, I have grown to to quite like it. Shortened footnotes maybe require a bit more attention to detail than ordinary footnotes - they're a bit different in any case, but I think there are some genuine advantages with them that make the style worth persevering with. Don't worry too much about it though; it's not a serious issue and I'll be happy to sort the citation formats myself soon enough. Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Birds May newsletter
The May 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The August 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.
This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Really, I know that, First Light. But sometimes people write something in the field "name" of the taxobox, and it is faster for me to use the template {{italic title}} than remove the name in the taxobox... Thank you very much for your comment. Flakinho (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought you might know that - but I figured the other editor probably didn't, since they didn't know about the template. The more informed we can all be, the better. And thanks for doing all that italicizing! First Light (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
If it's just something you want to think about, then there was no need to create an article. If you want others to think about it, then perhaps you should start a blog instead of a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ornithidium donaldeedodii
On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ornithidium donaldeedodii, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you don't mind taking a suggestion. I think you should leave a detailed message rather than a template warning. I think it's all good faith edits just need to talk to them. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - You are right. My comment "Please stop adding the various "Megafauna" categories to creatures that are not in that category" apparently gets lost in the template warning. I'll make it more clear. First Light (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. The reason I put the CSD tag was the last paragraph, which explains that the game was made up by some people, probably schoolkids, based on another game they made up. They even named the variations after themselves and their friend Emma ("if she could play it, anyone could"). I'm still learning about speedy deletion, and would appreciate understanding why that doesn't qualify for CSD (and any other CSD tags I've been placing!). Thanks, First Light (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Another fauna vandal
Have added another class of fauna vandal to your list on User:First Light/Fauna vandalism. The IP list is just a partial list - s/he usually comes into my watchlist radar but this is a pattern that has been followed for a very long time now and there is no category protection. Shyamal (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I think it will be helpful longterm to have something like this. It took me forever to convince anyone at WP:AIV awhile ago that the random IUCN changes were vandalism, for example. The megafauna vandal has too many IPs to list also, but at least they show a pattern and history to give to a rightfully dubious admin. First Light (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Gardenology.org
Hi First Light, I had noticed that there is a lot of information from an old plant encyclopedia on Gardenology.org and started adding it recently, especially when the article was completely missing from Wikipedia, since it is creative commons. I don't think I've even added texts that weren't from the Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture. I realize it is an older source, but didn't think it was a problem, especially if there was no other material on Wikipedia yet. Should I not add it anymore? It seems better than nothing. --Weedgarden (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nymphaea thermarum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'm well aware of that pest. There isn't any way of combating him, like making a bot tailored to clean up his edits?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to be able to help! If I find a similarly easy task related to gardening, I'll jump on it, so let me know if you come across one. --Weedgarden (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Betula utilis
On June 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Betula utilis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Indeed, thanks, First Light, for stepping in and taking care of that. It's nice to have talk page watchers who take care of things while I'm at work. ;-) By the way, I'll reply to your message on Salvia later tonight. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)19:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
