User talk:Dwergenpaartje/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Flora Antarctica

Hi, you'll have seen that I've added some links to this article, and have started Ross expedition to give some context. I notice that the Flora is in fact in 3 volumes, covering the Antarctic islands (which I think you've covered, at least in part), New Zealand (which you've covered), and Tasmania. Were you in the process of doing Tasmania when the AfD occurred? I think we ought to have roughly equal coverage of all three volumes. If you only want the detailed lists for NZ, then perhaps we should hive those off into a subsidiary article. Would be good to hear your plans. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and all the colleagues that did work on the article. I appreciate that. Nice that you started Ross expedition. I started work on the Flora Antarctica without realising how much work it really is and got distracted down the line. One of the things I did was create a handful of new articles (Caltha sps., Berberis sps., Ranunculus sps.) to stop criticism that there were too many red links. I do plan to finish it but we might want to cut up the article over the Flora's three respective volumes anyway. I don't think that there is a particular hurry. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've uploaded 10 of the colour plates. I think there's no reason to worry about redlinks in a fairly technical article like this, even less if they're in 3 subsidiary articles, but as you say there's no special hurry to do that. What I think we ought to do promptly, however, is to create sections in the article for the 3 volumes. Maybe I'll start on that now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A quick question (I've made new sections for the 2 missing vols) - where should "Botany of Fuegia, the Falklands, Kerguellen's land, etc." go? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It is part of the Antarctic islands volume, a subvolume, if you like. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you've replaced an image: that's fine, but given that it represents the same plate, it would have been better simply to have updated the image on Commons, to avoid duplication. Anyway, the article is coming along nicely. For my money, the priority would be a paragraph or two of description on the other two volumes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for the enthousiasm with which you work on Flora Antarctica. I think you have made an understandable error in rearranging the text. All of the islands and Patagonia covered so far are all from the Flora Antarctica proper, and that includes the New Zealand Arctic islands. These are not part of the Flora Novae Zelandiae, which covers North-, South- and Steward islands. It is a bit confusing and sorry for noticing so late. I also have a remark on the lay-out which you may be willing and able to correct. The right columns of the different list are not in one line (at least in my screen). This is not important though. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Simple lack of understanding on my part, I'm afraid: I did ask you above so I knew I was "on thin ice". I'll have a go at fixing it, but feel free to sort the material into the right sections as you go. There can be little doubt that the main "book" sections should be according to the 3 volumes; subsections after that are up to us, and we are free to have something like

• 2 Context
• 3 Book
• 3.1 Vol 1
• 3.2 Vol 2
• 3.3 Vol 3
• 4 Influence (or reception, legacy, all those words)

however we see fit. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: why is there a ref to Flora N-Z at the end of Seedplants, then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find the reference or do not understand which reference you mean. I notice now that you generalised the introductory texts for the portions on the other groups of plant (not being flowering plants) as if they cover all Arctic Islands, but in fact they only represent the finds on Auckland and Campbell Islands.

Thinking about it, perhaps the most logic way to deal with the issue would be we keep the article on Flora Antarctica to include only the Flora Antarctica proper. Ross expedition would than be an article connecting the three separate publications it provided information for, two of which have not yet been created so far. The Flora Antarctica is probably only covered for one third, the New Zealand Arctic islands finished, but the Kerguellen etc. bit is substantially larger, and I am only halfway through the angiosperm section at the moment. What do you think? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As an outsider to this conversation, I think that at least three articles are needed; certainly one for each of the three volumes, and perhaps an overall view. There's enough material so one article would be too long; the three volumes cover different areas/regions of flora distribution as defined by the WGSRPD. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too: one parent article and three child articles. We could create the F.A. child now; the other two are only stub sections at the moment, but we can create those as stubs also. However, I'm not sure that Ross expedition should be/merge with the parent; I envisage Ross expedition -> Overall Botany Books -> 3 Flora articles. What I'm not so sure about is what the Overall Botany Books article should be called: it depends on whether people habitually called all 3 parts "Flora Antarctica", or whether in fact they have been strict in their naming of the 3 parts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any common name for the three Floras. If there is, one could create the structure Chiswick Chap suggests, but creating a section on the books that were produced based on the plants collected during the expedition would work irrespective of the question whether a common name for the three Floras is known. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Peter coxhead is right to imply it would make sense to have an article called something like Floras from the Ross expedition or Hooker's Ross expedition floras, which would have the shape of the current article, and 3 child articles; we can rename the existing article whenever we like. I'll name and link all 3 Floras from Ross expedition as we don't want lengthy coverage there; they can be redirected later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

UM !

Just came across the Preface to Flora Tasmaniae, 1860.

Guess what? The whole thing is called Flora Antarctica, with four Parts,

• Part I Flora of Lord Auckland and Campbell's Islands
• Part II Flora of Fuegia, the Falkland Islands, etc
• Part III Flora of New Zealand
• Part IV Flora of Tasmania

If this is indeed the scheme generally followed, then we need 1+4 articles, and the whole thing is indeed "Flora Antarctica". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that settles it then, doesn't it? Feel free! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

OK ... (much later) ... that was knackering (a Britishism). I think I now have a plain summary in the overview article, and 4 more or less correctly structured child articles. They need illustrations, examples, and any notable points. Tasmania seems to have been important as Hooker converted to Darwinism, without quite admitting it! Probably there are fascinating discoveries in the other Parts, too. Confusingly, there is one Flora Antarctica, made of four Parts, all called Floras, but 6 Volumes; and the thing was issued in monthly parts with a small 'p'. So my head is spinning. I hope the result isn't too much of a mess, and that you'll feel inspired to fill in some of the many blank areas. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berberis ilicifolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puyehue (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) 09:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 March

Resolved

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Flora of Lord Auckland and Campbell's Islands page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berberis laurina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedicel (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) 11:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brexia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyme (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) 10:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brexia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swahili (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) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicobariodendron, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Calyx and Cyme (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) 10:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Paeonia delavayi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Clone, Follicle, Filament and Involucre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paeonia obovata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sachalin (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) 09:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paeonia cambessedesii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabrera (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) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paeonia officinalis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forma (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) 10:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paeonia corsica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maquis (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) 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paeonia algeriensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Style (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) 09:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Caladenia subspecies

Hello Dwergenpaartje,

Thanks for your interest in Caladenia longicauda. I've just returned from a month in W.A. photographing eremophilas and a few other genera, including some orchids - hence the slow reply to your message.

I confess to not understanding what you mean by "I think these subspecies names may need to be updated". The authority I rely on for Western Australian flora is FloraBase (managed by the Western Australian Herbarium). Here's a link to the page on Caladenia longicauda. Please let me know if you still think there's a problem.

Gderrin (talk)

@Gderrin:Hi, I hope we may enjoy your wonderfull photography. What I mean is that the species Caladenia longicauda cannot have subspecies with another generic name (Verticordia). Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that - now I understand. (I've been writing pages about Verticordia.) Trouble is (DAMMIT) I can't for the life of me see the mistake!! Can you fix it for me please? And thanks for the nice comment on photos - I'm working on that.

Gderrin (talk)

@Gderrin: the mistake had already been fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"A" or "an" with "herb..."

Dialects of English differ in whether they pronounce the "h" in words like "herb", "herbaceous", etc. Accordingly they differ in whether they use "a" (those dialects in which the "h" is pronounced, like mine) or "an" (most US dialects). Experience shows that using either "a" or "an" in these circumstances leads to endless back-and-forth edits. So wherever possible, it's best to avoid such sentences. Some examples are:

• use an adjective rather than a noun: "X is herbaceous" not "X is a/an herbaceous plant"

• put another word between: "X is a perennial herbaceous plant" not "X is a/an herbaceous perennial plant"

• use the plural: "Herbs are ..." rather than "A/An herb is ..."

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware this is a contentious issue. I'm Dutch and made the change because I pronounce an "n". All of the solutions you provide are fine as such, however a convention to avoid a/an seems to restrict a bit the flexibility that can be used to make written text interesting. I would actually prefer to go back to the initial "is a herbaceous". I'll keep away from this now because I think it really is not of any importance to the information we try to present.Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

As someone who enjoys Hoegaarden wheat beer, and can just about manage the Flemish pronunciation, but definitely not the Dutch, even after coaching, I'm certainly aware that the Dutch pronounce "h" at the start of a word! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paeonia broteri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estremadura (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) 10:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dwergenpaartje. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Warionia

When I started expanding the article Warionia I did not look at the article's history and had not realised you were working on it. If I had realised I would have left it alone. Nevertheless, what I added was not repetitive, as your edit summary stated, because your description was incomplete. Wikipedia is meant to be a cooperative project and removing another editor's relevant and sourced information is most rude. You do not have ownership of any article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please change it back if you don,t like it.Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It's OK. You have done it very nicely and I have added the article to the list at the African destubathon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Warionia

On 27 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Warionia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that perfumes made from the pungent Warionia saharae desert plant are reputed to employ its "supernatural powers" to make women more seductive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Warionia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Warionia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Catananche lutea page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Famatinanthus has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Dwergenpaartje. Famatinanthus, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Catananche lutea at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Catananche lutea

Following a request, I have restored catananche lutea on the grounds that there were sufficient other contributors to make the use of a {{db-g7}} tag invalid. I would certainly like to know why you applied the tag. If you still want the article deleted, you must do so via AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@RHaworth: I beg to differ, the question is not whether there are sufficient other contributers, but whether their contribution was substantial. And it is not. You are welcome to create a new article making use of the "substantial" contributions of all those other contributers. Kindly, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the irritation that led to you asking for the article to be deleted. However, I have to agree that you were wrong: it's a good article, and should not be deleted. You have to accept WP:5P3: once you've added material, it doesn't belong to you, however annoying other editors are. I really hope you won't be put off contributing here – you're a valued plant editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, these are the first nice things anyone has said since this all started. I realise all of this is just about communication among editors, which is very unfriendly from time to time. I accept WP:5P3, but I want to make clear that unbalanced critism, without putting any effort in providing content that takes away the critism, really isn't very helpful and is demotivating. I've done this before with Mary Barkworth, when someone put a unreliable sources template, which was not noticed by anyone. Ones again, thank you very much for the feedback. Kind regard, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Overzealous taggers can be a problem. And the more citations wikipedia requires then the steeper the hurdles are for new editors. I am sorry you've had a rough introduction. The best way to get one's material to anything like a Stable Version is WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You also have to understand the DYK process is often a hands off process for the reviewer, who is under heavy pressure to make sure an article meets WP guidelines and policies before appearing on the main page. That is all that was happening with the nomination, I identified areas that needed improvement or change to meet WP policy and noted them.--Kevmin § 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Catananche lutea

On 27 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Catananche lutea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Catananche lutea produces five types of seed that correspond to a range of different survival and dispersal strategies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catananche lutea. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Catananche lutea), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Famatinanthus

On 14 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Famatinanthus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Famatinanthus decussatus is a rare shrub from Argentina threatened by mining, off-road vehicles, and livestock? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Famatinanthus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Famatinanthus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Anemone thomsonii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Style

Gladiolus watsonioides (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Watsonia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plicosepalus sagittifolius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal (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) 10:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cephalopyge (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Cephalopyge (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red-billed quelea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tef (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) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Red-billed quelea

Ok, the next step for Red-billed quelea is looking at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. If you feel it fulfils the criteria then nominate at WP:GAN if you want. I can help with this. I came across Good Articles and Featured Articles early - they are a good way of establishing a de facto Stable Version of sorts. Consider the first as a stepping stone to the second..cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks, I've extended the content a bit further, added a few more citations for statements from before I started editing this article. One issue I'm not able to solve is citing the statement on Q. russii, I just do not get any hits if I google it. Thanks for the help given and offered. I just now nominated the article for GA. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That comes from the 1966 Ward article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Dwergenpaartje, I'm doing a copyedit of the article for you before it gets reviewed. I also have some suggestions for improvements if you'd like. I've flagged the nomination up at WT:BIRD so someone should review it soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Thank you for the assistance. And yes, of you have some advice for improval, I certainly would like to have it. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've left some comments on the talk page and as I said there I'm happy to answer questions and help you through the process. Cheers :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red-billed quelea

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Red-billed quelea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red-billed quelea

The article Red-billed quelea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Red-billed quelea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Gymnarrhenoideae) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gymnarrhenoideae, Dwergenpaartje!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks. Please add appropriate wikiprojects to the talk page of articles you create (I have added "{{WP Plants}}")

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Red-billed quelea

On 11 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red-billed quelea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red-billed quelea (flock pictured) is the most numerous undomesticated bird species on earth, with an estimated population sometimes peaking at 1.5 billion? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Red-billed quelea), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter 00:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats on the GA and the front page showing. :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Fabulous work developing and improving your first Good Article. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nelicourvi weaver

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nelicourvi weaver you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nelicourvi weaver

The article Nelicourvi weaver you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nelicourvi weaver for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

		The Bio-star
		Nice work on bird articles as well as plants etc. Cheers! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, since you have been editing a lot of bird articles, I invite you to join WikiProject Birds. It is a pretty fun place to be, and is where we coordinate stuff. Hope to see you there soon! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

For a real trial of fire, WP:FAC is the final step towards "finishing" an article. I like the challenge but it can get out of hand (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redback spider/archive1 for an example of a particularly onerous one...). Still I find it fascinating for what people find. It can be scary. I am happy to conominate, say, red-billed quelea, which I did some tinkering with (or you can just nominate it yourself if you want), or if you want to maybe do a few more Good Articles just to get the swing of things a bit more, that's okay too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Casliber, I do think it is a bit scary. I'm unsure how much work it will entail. And life is a bit busy: the veggie plot, picking berries, making jam, the day job. But if you would conominate me, I can see what I can do.

At the moment I'm working on Brassicaceae, which I can see you noticed. Do you think it is a good idea to have a new article listing the genera? With both trees, the article with the complete listing of the genera is a bit repetitive. Do you think we could now get rid of the "Further reading" and "External links" sections? I find them either too general, too specific, or too repetitive compared to the current article to be of much use. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply (I have ~9000 pages on my watchlist.). It might be good to get into the flow by writing a few GAs first - you get a good 'feel' for how these things play out. Also, enthusiasm plays a big part. Sometimes one just feels like buffing one article more than another. There's no deadline so if your head is brassicaceous for the time being so be it. I've written a few plant articles too. Regarding External links, see Wikipedia:External links - for the most part, about 90% of them can be scuppered. Ditto further reading sections. I try to nuke both as much as possible. I'll look and opine about structure in a sec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd move the genera to a List of Brassicaceae genera article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually am giving the feathery locust a lookover and I think it's a doable FAC. I'll keep looking today and likely co-nominate it. having two people able to fix up issues on larger articles is very helpful. it gets easier once you get the hang of it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll watch what will happen and try to help. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pentadiplandra

Hello. You said: "Hello, you've been removing lots of content from the Pentadiplandra article, mostly ethnobotanic information. Let me start saying that I have no interest whatsoever in promoting the use of herbs for medical purposes, which could easily become dangerous. Great care has to be taken, so thank you for having a thorough look. I have to say, I am in sort of a shock that something that took many hours to compose is deleted in a time span that does not seem to allow for review whether the information from the sources has correctly been paraphrased or not. I want to stress that everything I wrote down was covered by the sources I cited. I also was under the impression I used secondary sources, see for instance Prelude Medicinal Plants Database and the PROTA website, with an impressive editorial board which is a copy of the same in a book titled Medicinal Plants, Volume 1, Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, pp. 405-407. It seems I will have to take more care, and not trust primary scientific literature. Dunno what I actually want to say, seems I just need to get rid of some disappointment, just like when you expected to have done great for an exam, put it turns out you've failed."

The supposed medicinal properties are not supported by citations in the current medical literature (which can be checked quickly), nor are there systematic reviews in high-quality medical journals or books that meet Wikipedia's standard for medical sourcing, WP:MEDRS. Simply, none of the biological effects can be confirmed, except for sweetness. I can see where your content was derived - the book Protologue, where the source is dated 1886. There appears to be no secondary confirmation. I preserved most of the botanical description. The trimmed content was motivated by WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTCATALOG. --Zefr (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a difficult balancing act to respect WP:NOTCENSOR and WP:MEDRS. Personally, I think that it can, and should, be said that Pentadiplandra plants are used in traditional medicine. The statement A syrup made from the root is marketed throughout the Congo Basin is incomplete without saying what it is marketed for. Prota4U seems to me to be as reliable a secondary source for ethnobotanical information as any others. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the issue is traditional medicine uses (can't meet the rigor of MEDRS), the sourcing would not need to follow MEDRS strictly, but rather good secondary references (more than one) would be sufficient, in my opinion. A PubMed search on the topic yields 56 publications dating back 22 years, more than 40 discussing sweetness properties. The others reflect highly preliminary work mainly using in vitro models, i.e., too preliminary and primary to represent medicinal effects. --Zefr (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dwergenpaartje. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Felicia (genus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dehiscence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Felicia echinata has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Dwergenpaartje. Felicia echinata, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Resolved

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polyarrhena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dehiscence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Resolved

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gorteria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cypsela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Oedera capensis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Oedera capensis, Dwergenpaartje!

Wikipedia editor Enwebb just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Excellent contribution, thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Enwebb's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Enwebb (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Felicia echinata

On 5 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Felicia echinata, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that prickly felicia belongs to the daisy family and is found on sand dunes in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Felicia echinata. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Felicia echinata), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)