User talk:EncycloPetey

Hello User:EncycloPetey

I was trying to add a classification scheme that was similar to the most recent phylogeny of the Marchantiophyta^[1]. Now if we were to include only schemes that had the general concensus of the scientific community the these pages would be devoid of many current research ideas. And isn't that what Wikipedia is about, showing the general user the many and varied ideas about these topics. So the ideas might not be mainstream at this point but it shows an alternative view held by some, also it can be said Galileo's ideas weren't mainstream at the time but was vindicated subsequently. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do know what you were doing, but the classification schemes you added do not have the support of any scientific consensus. They are the result of a single paper, and also not the result of a general collaboration in the scientific field. The APG classification of angiosperms was a broad collaboration. The Goffinet classification of mosses was broadly accepted by bryologists. The Smith et al. classification of ferns has a broad acceptance in the scientific literature. This cannot be said of the latest Stotler classification of liverworts. The Stotlers publish a new classification every 10-15 years themselves, and there are several competing classifications in circulation. Choosing to use just one of the newer classifications, without a reasonably broad scientific consensus, violates WP:NOR and is inappropriate for any encyclopedic publication.

Your edits have also been problematic in a number of other ways, such as loading information into a taxobox summary that does not appear in the article, and which should not appear in a taxobox; you have been adding footnotes in section headers; and other problems as well.

If you believe that Wikipedia should adopt a particular classification scheme for a major group of plants, you can discuss that proposal in the WP:PLANTS group, which helps to add, coordinate, and maintain information about plants at Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Apropos your comment at the Talk:Myocyte‎ page, I suggest you sign up for Wikipedia Library access to Wikipedia:DynaMed. There are some other journals available online listed at the library project that might also be useful. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. For most of these research opportunities, I have not applied in the past because my work and Wikisource activities limit the amount of time I have available to be productive. Since this one does not seem to have a limit on the number of applicants, I will look into making an application. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The OED lists many senses for "broach", most of them technical, and none of them referring to jewellery or a clasp / fastening for clothing. (Another entry has an unrelated etymology.) Under "brooch" it lists (1) "an ornamental fastening ...", the other senses being obsolete. The etymologies are the same and apparently the spelling distinction has only arisen relatively recently, but it's observed nonetheless: see for example grammarist.com, grammarrule.blogspot.co.uk, grammar.about.com, Paul Brians. Note that the OED itself, though it gives "broach" as an alternative spelling, only lists the "ornamental fastening" sense under the headword "brooch" - OED often includes obsolete variants this way, since it's descriptive and not prescriptive. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevant points are that: (1) Both spellings are given for both entries. (2) Both entries have a definition of a pin used to fasten clothing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please also see wikt:broach, which is up-to-date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as I explained above, the entry for "broach" does not, in fact, have a definition for a clothing-pin. That's only at "brooch". Unless you're looking at a different version of the OED than me? My source is the online version, linked above. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The information in the OED is at the entry for brooch, where you missed the fact that it can also be spelled broach. Wiktionary has the same information. Both spellings apply to the jewelry meaning, but the definitions and etymologies in the printed OED do not duplicate all the information, but instead note the alternative spellings. There is no consistent spelling distinction in modern English; it is very easy to find citation examples of broach in published books that clearly refer to the jewelry, and such a citation may be found in the Wiktionary entry I pointed to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'm wondering if you can think of an alternative article use for this image, which you've just removed from root. Also, I'm curious whether someone interested in botany can tell more about the tree from the image alone (e.g., genus, possible diseases, etc.)? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb2s3 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The best place to ask with regard to the botany would be at WP:PLANTS. But do keep in mind that not every picture uploaded to Commons is necessarily going to be used in an existing article at the English Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have a problem related to unicellular green algae, and i think that you are the one who can help me. i wanted to know which unicellular algae functions as indicators of clean water. Let me be more clear, Actually i am solving an biology crossword puzzle. so the clue to this algae is that it is a 7 letters long word and its second letter is "E". Ankit2299 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding . You´re absolutly correct, and to be honest I didn´t even look at the source, if I had I wouldn´t have edited that way. What bugs me is that I expect a WP-article of this kind to sound more like my edit, take Jeremiah for instance, "Jeremiah is traditionally credited with authoring the Book of Jeremiah...". I have no problem with that, but "He is the author" says that he both existed and wrote as a historical fact.

Checking other minor prophets and their books, I see more inconsistencies like Habbakuk/Book of Habbakuk, and with Jewish Encyclopedia one could probably source "He is the author" in more of them. You could certainly change Book of Habakkuk (and the "Works" section of Habbakuk) with if you wished.

Well regarded as the Jewish Encyclopedia may be, it´s old and I hope there´s better sources out there, but if I want to change these articles, it´s up to me to find them. Minor prophets states "Scholars usually assume that there exists an original core of prophetic tradition behind each book which can be attributed to the figure after whom it is named.[5]" (there´s that "attributed" I want), and that source (Floyd, Michael H (2000). Minor prophets) checks out (it´s on googlebooks). Of course, that´s not specifically Habakkuk, like JE. I´ll have to think some more, maybe I´ll try posting on a wikiproject or something. If I do, I´ll ping you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I could cite several dozen other scholarly sources identifying the author, but having a string of citations in the summary section would be more a distraction than a benefit. Quibbling over the name attached to the author of this work is pointless. The book of Habakkuk was written, and this is a fact. Someone must have written it, and we call that person Habakkuk. No details about this person are certain, but there are traditions about the author, and inferences made from the content of the book. Saying that the book is "attributed to" Habakkuk indicates nothing useful. "Habakkuk" is the name by which the author of this book is known, and is the only name by which he is known, whoever he may have been.

If you were talking about the Pentateuch (Torah) being attributed to Moses, then I would completely agree with "attributing" the book to him. If we were talking about the Athenian Society's translation of Aristophanes being "attributed" to Oscar Wilde, then I would agree. But for the book of Habakkuk, the issue is fruitless. Someone is the author, and the name scholars give to that author is Habakkuk, even though we don't know whether that was his name, whether it was a pseudonym, or someone other circumstance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see Dipentodon adding the same link to very many pages of botanical families. The link itself appears to be behind a paywall and I can't see it. However, whatever the merits or de-merits of the publication there seems to be little merit in blanketing so many articles with the same ref. It looks very much like link spamming to me. I note that you have reverted one addition and I have reverted four but before going for a mass reversion, I would welcome your comments. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}  

I posted the start of a discussion about this at WP:PLANTS when I first noticed it, but received no comments. Dipentodon has gone on to add the same information everywhere over and over, often altering the classification system we're using, in order to fit the non-phylogenetic one apparently used in the cited paper. The result is that he's changed some articles about taxa (regardless of current name) into articles about names (regardless of the taxon to which it is applied). This is certainly counter to what we've decided to do at WP:PLANTS in previous discussions about such matters.

I can't access the paper either, but judging from what I have been able to find, it merely a species count paper by family, and it clearly doesn't take into account the current systems of classification of pteridophytes, nor does it permit any uncertainty in the number of species. Based on those two counts, I wouldn't rate it as a valuable source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support mass reversion. (The user also edits as an IP.) There's no attempt to check consistency with existing systems of classification or the existing text. So the total species count for a family may be updated based on this source, but not the counts for the genera of that family, based on other sources. I haven't had the time and energy to revert/fix all the problems I've noticed, but in general the edits are lowering the quality of the encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've left a message at User talk:Dipentodon trying to explain the issue. Potentially this is a good source (although I can't access it), but it has to be used with care and understanding, which is not the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have:

• A brief report on Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Publice Library, coordinated by Merrilee:

  What topics might we cover in a follow up?

  Find out more about resources your public library provides to help with editing (hint, it's more than just books!)

  Special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)

• Join in on an in person Wikidojo!

  Are you curious how your peers approach writing a Wikipedia article? This exercise, pioneered by Wikipedians Nikola Kalchev and Vassia Atanassova in 2015 and conducted in many places around the world, will help us all - from first-time wiki users to veteran Wikipedians - share ideas, while building an article together. If you have ideas (relating to Bay Area history, ideally) about a new article we could build (stubs and short existing articles are fine), please submit them ahead of time to coordinator Pete Forsyth. (User talk page or email is fine.)

  Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi EncycloPetey, to which plant references are you referring to and how to send you the file, more than likely its a pdf. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi EncycloPetey, I fixed the DOI link in the reference I missed out a dot in the doi address.

i.e. I used doi=10.3897/phytokeys.596261

instead of doi=10.3897/phytokeys.59.6261

It's fixed now so you can try the link again.

Hi, did you try it again, I have checked and it is working and the pdf file is free from PhytoKeysVidesh Ramsahai (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, give me some time to upload the file, probably in a couple hours. I will send you a link to my dropbox so you can download it.Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi here is d link to my drop box https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fyjomp7k3eolek9/AADvvR5DL-QBOfL9rg1go3Zaa?dl=0 . Tell me if you get it

It says the folder is empty. If I download I get an empty file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is my email send me a shout an i will send the file to you: videshramsahai@hotmail.com

Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!

We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)

Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.

Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, Stephen and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have a brief presentation for your education and possible enjoyment:

• Former EFF intern Marta Belcher will discuss crowdsourcing her Stanford Law School graduation speech using a wiki. The "WikiSpeech" was the subject of prominent national media attention in 2015, and more than half of her classmates contributed to writing and editing the commencement address via a wiki.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, August 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't allow non-cladistically based categories in taxoboxes, you may want to fix red algae too. That's the example I was copying from. Gould363 (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to. I assume you're making an assumption from some other edit, but you haven't clarified what that other edit might be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry: this was in reference to your reversion an edit I had made to brown algae adding Protista to the taxobox. (The audit trail in the article history doesn't actually seem to reflect that faithfully, though maybe I'm just looking at it wrong.) I had also made a few other edits; I'll need to redo those manually. Red algae includes Protista in the taxobox; you say that that is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.Gould363 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Protista" is an outdated wastebin group. At this point the higher-level classification of Rhodophyta has several competing schemes, no one of which is favored widely yet, but none of which include the concept of "Protista". That group has been dismantled into several kingdoms because "Protsita" is simply all Eukaryota with Fungi, Plants, and Animals removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The technical term for "wastebin" is "paraphyletic." I'm aware of its taxonomic status. Nevertheless, many biologists find paraphyletic groupings such as "moths" useful. I was simply informing you that if, as you say, Wikipedia's policy is to avoid them in taxoboxes, you might want to clean up the one at Red Algae, which reads Protista (that is, Red Algae and Brown Algae should be edited for consistency). I'm not going to make that edit myself, as I don't see it as particularly useful, but you seem to feel strongly about it.Gould363 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for mansplaining that to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You were the one mansplaining. I left you a courtesy note about an edit you might want to make; you ignored what I actually wrote and instead gave me a freshman biology lecture justifying the original reversion, which I wasn't disputing. Gould363 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be working very hard at guarding an article. What exactly is going on with you? Do you not understand that no one owns these articles? Time to move to one side and stop making yourself look silly. I noticed that you got all hot under the collar about the material I included under "Origins" but then finally bothered to notice that I provided a reference. Nice to have your opinion about the reference, but the reference is sitting on my desk and is good enough and that is all that is needed. Zedshort (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your "reference" is a general textbook by a non-specialist who used out-of-date texts to create an inaccurate general description, which was then summarized by you. It is not good enough, as the information does not agree with current paleobtanical, phylogenetic, ecological, or bryological research. Thank you for your undergraduate freshman introductory course viewpoint, but that's just not good enough for an encyclopedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia being written here, not a summary of the latest and greatest reserch on Bryophytes. There is nothing wrong with keeping it simple. We don't need to reference only articles from specialists and specialized journals. Your insistance that only such references be used is just plain silly. If you do not recognize as correct and accurate all that I put in the "Origins" section as true, then I think you need to back to those basic texts and try reading them more closely. Try to get the basics right first. Zedshort (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Goodness you're arrogant. Thinking you know everything because you read a paragraph in a general textbook. Nevermind that the information in the textbook is contradicted by multiple sourced articles on Wikipedia, including the very article to which the information was added. Example: The oldest bryophytes date from the Ordovician, not the Silurian. Example: Bryophytes and vascular plants did not evolve independently and separately from aquatic ancestors, and the land plants are now universally considered to be monophyletic. Example: The earliest bryophytes were not aquatic; their fossils were terrestrial, and in fact only a small number of bryophyte genera are aquatic at all. Example: Aquatic plants lack stomata, but both hornworts and mosses have them. Example: the idea that bryophytes depend on rainwater is a temperate zone bias. Tundra species seldom get rainwater. And besides, most bryophytes are tropical epiphytes, and get their nutrients from detritus, the same as epiphytic orchids, cacti, and bromeliads. Thanks again for your undergraduate freshman introductory course viewpoint, but that's just not good enough for an encyclopedia, because it is in no way accurate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you believe all that is so, then why don't you just add the material, written to suit yourself, rather than to simply delete material wholesale that I added because I saw that it was obviously missing from the article. Your immediate resort to deletion rather than to consider that the edit points to missing material is more a sign of ill will and territorial behavior than anything. Try working with the material rather than have a hissy fit and delete in a reaction. When I read an article, I come with questions and if I don't find them I seek elsewhere, return here and fill in the gaps. Zedshort (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your unrequested advice on how to spend my time and accomplish goals. And thanks again for for your uninformed opinions about me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you would simply read the paragraph as the title suggests, "Origins" rather than reacting and reading it in the light of present day bryophytes it would make much more sense to you. The event of the population of the land mass by plants was of paramount importance, and it was done by bryophyte-like plants. It should be obvious that the bryophyte-like predecessors would have had to occupy only niches very similar to that of total immersion of water. Their present diversity as a result of adaptation to other environments obviously came much later. Finally, some mention of how bryophytes feed should be made. Zedshort (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I did read that section, but I also know what the fossils and the current systematics actually show. The "immersed" ancestors were green algae, and there is no phylogenetic nor fossil evidence of any immersed bryophyte ancestry. There has been speculation since Victorian times, but all scientific research of the past fifty years points to the contrary. The few aquatic lineages, such as Sphagnum and Naiadita, are secondarily derived. Bryophytes feed like most plants: they make their own food through photosynthesis. That's what autotrophs do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, green algae (eukaryotic plants) that had become associated into larger more complicated things that were slowly acclimated to another environment. I understand that the fossil record for such soft bodied things are hazy, and it is speculation that I am repeating here as to how plants moved on to the land but it is speculation that has sources and that is approriate. As for whether bryophytes had that origin as progenitor of all land plants is the question but some believe that was so. While bryophites may be photosynthetic, they must use minerals and those must be delivered to the plant somehow and distributed within the plant somehow; they can't live only on carbon dioxide and water and sunlight, and they are not vascular. I addressed both of those subjects as they were both missing from the article. Zedshort (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, we have fossil charophytes, both fossilized oogonia from plants like Chara and fossil thalli of plants like Coleochaete. We also have extensive fragmentary and molecular evidence of cutin and epidermis from as far back as the Cambrian. The record is far from hazy at this point, because there has been a wealth of research over the last fifty years. We no longer need to speculate.

The acquisition of minerals and other micronutrients is not "feeding" though. It has nothing to do with feeding. And you failed to consider that (1) micronutrients are needed in very small quantities, (2) bryophtes have far less total biomass tan vascular plants,(3) bryophytes grow in closer contact with their substrate, (4) they do not have the same growth rate as most vascular plants, and (5) conductive tissue exists in several groups of liverworts and in most mosses. Everything you stated then is speculative, without considering these differences, and is not based on any actual research. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no formal agenda to allow people to freely share ideas and perhaps learn about Wikipedia through hands-on editing. Co-organizer Ben Creasy will be looking at election-related articles to enhance the information available in the upcoming November elections.

Co-organizer Stephen LaPorte has suggested doing an upload-a-thon for Wiki Loves Monuments. Niki, the California coordinator for WLM will be in attendance. WLM is an annual event and the official dealine is Friday the 30th for submissions to count towards awards.

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, or a stool and do your own thing.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, September 2016. Mark your calendars now for the 3rd Wednesday in October, the 26th, when we will have a brief presentation.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Joneses ARE a family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.85.149 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

But "Joneses" is not the proper name of a taxon, it is the plural form of a English proper name that also exists in the singular as a proper name. The situation is therefore not equivalent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Useful to refer those who insist on changing grammatical number in relation to taxa to WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

Please copy and share this on other talk pages. We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather at the Wikimedia Foundation lounge to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no meaty agenda this month, but we will allow a brief period for:

• Open mic for anybody who attended WikiConference North America 2016 in San Diego last week and wants to share their takeaway
• Question & answer
• Open mic for announcements
• Maybe a focus on some topical election article editing with Ben?

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, a stool or counter and do your own thing.

---

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, October 2016.

---

PS: Mark your calendars ahead now for the 3rd Wednesday in November, the 30th (the week after Thanksgiving), at 6 p.m. when our WikiSalon will host a super awesome top secret mystery guest mingling in our midst. We will announce specifics at the upcoming WikiSalon.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen, Jacob, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a summary left. You meant to write "the current summary is inadequate to allow for content splitting" in your edit summary. I'll make a better one now. As an aside, what did your previous edit summary mean "improper transfer violates terms of MW"? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the introductory paragraphs were left, but the material that was removed was not summarized. In any case, much of the material does not belong at plant development because it is not about that topic. The new article should be pruned / revised / expanded to clarify its proper scope, and some of the material should be left behind (either intact or in summarized form) at plant morphology.

There was no mention made at either end of where the content had gone or where it had originated. The editor thus implicitly claimed to be the sole author of the material added to the new plant development article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, and I've left a comment on his talk page and added the appropriate templates on both Plant development and Plant morphology, so that's all taken care of. And yeah I see what you mean, the development section of Plant morphology is about development and growth in the context of morphology, not just "plant development". I think I'll leave it as it is and cut down the Plant development article so it doesn't concentrate on morphology so much. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message about the mistake on the page above. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

---

Details and RSVP here.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki and open-source enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

Before and after the brief presentation we allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks.

---

In addition, this month we will have:

• a brief presentation from User:Cullen328 (Jim Heaphy) about the Wikipedia Teahouse
• spontaneous lightning talks from the floor
• community announcements from the floor

---

For details and to RSVP see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, December 2016

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

+++++
P.S. Any help spreading the word through social media or other avenues is most welcome! We plan to announce this on various sites and invite various groups; if you would like to join in, check our meta planning page, and please note any announcements you are sending out: meta:Monthly WikiSalon in San Francisco#Announcements and promotion

Please feel free to add to, refine, reorganize or edit the above linked page: it is a wiki!

We need more helpers and organizers, so if you see a need, please jump in, or talk to us about it! You can add your username to the meta page where appropriate, or create a new role!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi, everybody.

We are excited to remind you of the ninth in the Bay Area WikiSalon series that is coming up this Wednesday evening at 6 p.m.

• Details (RSVP suggested) here (RSVP helps us know how much food and drink to bring in)

What is a WikiSalon? A monthly safe and inclusive meatspace event conducted in organized chaos and we all clean up the mess afterwards. Livestream links for the presentation are available during presentation months, and will be forthcoming for those of you that cannot attend. December is a presentation month.

---

Hope to see you there! Wayne (and Ben) - co-organizers
Any last minute questions or suggestions? Please ping or email Ben or me. | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Wikipedia Day 16 SF is a fun Birthday bash and edit-a-thon on Sunday, January 15, 2017, hosted by Bay Area WikiSalon at the Wikimedia Foundation's Chip Deubner Lounge in the South of Market Street business district.

For details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/SF/Wikipedia Day 2017

The San Francisco gathering is one of a number of Wikipedia Day celebrations worldwide.

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy, Checkingfax and Slaporte | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this notice)

---

PS: We need volunteers to help make this a fun and worthwhile event. Please add your name to the Project page, and what you can offer. It is a wiki, so please make direct edits to the page.

Bay Area WikiSalon usually meets the last Wednesday evening of every month as an inclusive and safe place to collaborate, mingle, munch and learn about new projects and ideas.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EncycloPetey. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ernst Friedrich Johann Dronke, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thanks for the notice. I created the article from a portion of the de-WP so there wasn't a lot of text to pull from: I do not have the English titles of his works. I created the article because this author is cited several times in Plumptre's The Tragedies of Sophocles., which we now have at Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi - still not sure he passes notability, but WP:AGF, and not being able to research it adequately, I think it could pass, so I won't tag it for notability. However, it is uncited, which leaves the issue of it looking like original research. Regardless, nice little stub. Keep it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with English Wikipedia's regulations and reverted by you. Of course is my fault. But I am puzzled about the origin time of flowering plant. In my impression, there started to exist many fossil pollens from 130 millions years ago. I remember news such as World's oldest fossil dating back 130million years could solve meaning of life. And in China, many reports claimed that scientists had discovered fossils of angiosperm from Late Jurassic such as Chinese Scientists Find Jurassic Herbaceous Angiosperm Plant Fossil. I am not professional in biology so I am willing to follow your point of view. Please tell me why you think Flowering plants' temporal range is from 120 millions ago?--空间的拓荒者 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues. (1) You need a credible source, such as a peer-reviewed scientific journal that provides the date you added. For scientific facts, a scientific journal should be cited as a source. Mainstream newspapers such as the Mirror are not reliable sources of scientific data. (2) Also, the article makes no mention of the date. The place you made the change is the place where the article is summarized. So the information should first appear in the article itself (with the citation I mentioned), and then it can be summarized in the taxobox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my revision to kelp - would you care to explain in detail? Or is the no further reason than what you already wrote? Because you realise (if you have taken any time at all to read the source) that the background for a revision is valid, right? There is no foundation for the families in modern terms.Carystus (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've read the current literature and disagree with your claim. You blanked content and offered nothing new. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 That is true, I blanked content, and for the reason I stated, that the eight families are not clear to me, but I believe the ones now stated are wrong. Do you have suggestions regarding the families?

The text I wrote "In the class (Phaeophyceae a.k.a. Phaeophyta) called brown algae, the order Laminariales are called Kelps." is clearer than the previous, it should be preferred. You reverted the text back to "There are about 30 different genera", isn't that rubbish in your own opinion? As for your revision of Laminaria, you do realise that the term kelp go beyond the genus, hence the need for clarification. If you think I did it the wrong way, will you suggest a better way?Carystus (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC) correction: "(Phaeophyceae a.k.a. Phaeophyta)" should read "Phaeophyceae"Carystus (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't looked at the Manual of Style regarding lead sentences. You keep asking me for more information and opinions, but haven't followed up on the suggestions I gave you about what was wrong. Collaboration is not one-sided. You seem very eager to change something, but don't seem to be familiar with the current literature, or the Manual of Style, or current classification, or the basics of botanical nomenclature. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to teach you all of that, especially when you seem unwilling to even consider that you need to look at the Manual of Style. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You're invited to The Black Woman is God Edit-a-Thon at SOMArts in San Francisco on Saturday July 22, 1-4 pm. It'll be at 934 Brannan Street (between 8th & 9th). Everyone is welcome to join this editing event, held in conjunction with The Black Woman is God exhibition to raise the online visibility of Black women artists and challenge the gaps in art history that erase or minimize Black women’s contributions as artists, activists and social change-makers. (Message requested by Dreamyshade and delivered on 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC). You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)

Articles that you have been involved in editing— Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Ricciocarpos, EncycloPetey!

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

Nice article - I'm surprised there wasn't already on this genus. It would give extra clarity if you could split text into separate sections on Description and Habitat. Perhaps put the terrestrial form image higher up on the page under the taxobox? Galleries nowadays seem to be depracated, but I still think they work ok.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: There are literally thousands of plant genera that do not yet have pages. Sections will have to wait until a lengthy expansion, which I'm unlikely to have time to do in the forseeable future, as most of my effort currently focuses into Wikisource. I just happened to have a little time to create an article here for a change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of that (being a botanist, myself). Obviously I can't know the commitment level of each editor to the articles they start - but I do like to give editors good faith suggestions for simple improvements, should they care to invest the extra time. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosette (botany), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internode (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) 11:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• And you are now blocked for continuing the personal attacks and refusing to collaborate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• If you want to accuse me of being "low-handed and mean", please do so here rather than at Wikisource where nobody else will see it. You are blocked for continuing with personal attacks after I had warned both of you about your disruptive approach to handling disagreement, and not for announcing that you will not be editing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• For what it is worth, I strongly disagree with this block, user:Boing! said Zebedee. Calling out trolling, which the repeated remarks aimed at EncycloPetey clearly were,is not a reason to block. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  When both parties were still having a go at each other after having been warned to stop, I thought it only fair to block both of them. But as the consensus seems to be against me on this one, I have unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly agree with unblocking. One thing I have learned in my time here is that disputes are not always between a good guy and a bad guy. Sometimes they are between two well-meaning editors with different views and somewhat frayed ends due to the numerous conflicts that tend to arise here. In my experience, EncycloPetey is definitely one of the good guys. bd2412 T 13:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: that strokes pretty well with what I said .. but no, it was not fair. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you back, sorry you had a bumpy time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC).

Thank you for the correction. Deutrostome pointed this out to me also. Virion123 (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read all of the following:

• AN report
• village pump discussion
• RFC
• FAC discussion.
• ongoing clusterfuck starting in this archive and continuin today.

All of that happened because WP editors have to add kinds of useless clutter to the first sentence, making it ridiculous for people on mobile who are over half our readers - not to mention plain old web-based readers - to understand what the article is even about. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on your talk page. If you prefer to hold the discussion here, please say so and I will accommodate that. There are multiple issues to work out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no way in hell you read that stuff about first sentences. What you wrote on my talk page was about something else.Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. I wrote the above, because it is general. Please do take the time to read it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The links above discuss the problems created by outsourcing descriptions to Wikidata, not locally created descriptions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You are not dealing with the reason why the WMF reading team took matters into their own hands and added the descriptions from Wikidata which is discussed ad nauseum in the links above and addressed particularly clearly in the link in the fourth bullet to the FAC discussion. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You are not being helpful. Telling me over and over to read extensive discussions without making your point or concern clear does not help. What "reason" am I supposed to deal with? And how are you suggesting I deal with this "reason"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You're invited to an Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon at SFMOMA in San Francisco on Thursday March 8, 5-9 pm. It'll be at 151 Third Street, 2nd floor, free to the public. Everyone is welcome to participate in an evening of communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to gender, art, and feminism. (This message is from User:Dreamyshade. You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The file File:Ephedra stem xs.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zinclithium: this could be a useful image so I've moved it to Commons; it can be deleted from here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Heraldic tinctures has been nominated for merging with Template:Heraldry footer. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

edited Hi, Sorry for posting this here but I am unable to edit on Wikisource. I am sorry if my edits were disruptive but I should atleast have been given a warning, I will discuss the issue on the Talk page, please reconsider the ban. As for the POV edit summaries the same user [from the same IP range] Zeshan Mahmood has been making such [pro-Pakistan] edits all over Wikimedia Projects, I had reverted all of those without any issues on Commons, Simple Wiki and did not think I would face any problem on Wikisource. Gotitbro (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You knew another person had been blocked for making POV edits on the same issue, then proceeded to bring the same issue to another wiki and start an edit war with an admin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend start an edit war. I will discuss the issue on Talk page I did not know the user was an admin. Gotitbro (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Please tell me if the block is going to be reconsidered or where I can appeal it. I have never faced a block and generally avoid edit wars, I only edited the page as I felt it was not done in the right essence. I really believe I should've at least been warned before a block [I was not even notified of a block]. If I have broken any WS specific please make me aware of them. Gotitbro (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The file File:Roundel vert.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The file File:Trick tenne.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The file File:Roundel purpure.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leucolej cells.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice to spot you editing again. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

A tag has been placed on Category:Scytosiphonales requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Seneca the Younger's plays has been nominated for merging with Template:Seneca the Younger. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick facts Eight years! ...

Precious

Eight years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Muscle fibre. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#Muscle fibre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello EncycloPetey, would you be in favour of keeping Muscle tissue as the main covering page with pages now at Skeletal muscle, Cardiac muscle, and Smooth muscle changing to Skeletal muscle tissue, cardiac muscle tissue, and smooth muscle tissue, with info from the page Muscle merging with these other pages? I'm not really familiar with the histories but have noticed that smooth muscle was called smooth muscle tissue in the past. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

With regard to changing Skeletal muscle --> Skeletal muscle tissue (etc.) I do not think it matters either way. Each of those articles is about a specific kind of tissue, really. But I do NOT agree to merging muscle into muscle tissue or the other pages. The expectation from the average reader is to find a general article at Muscle, and that should be the location of the general article. Even the human anatomy articles have this expectation, with opening sentences such as "The biceps ... is a large muscle...". The biceps is not a large muscle tissue; it is a large muscle. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to find an alternative as you are clearly against the removal/merge of Muscle tissue page to Muscle. The example of biceps belongs to Skeletal muscle page as all other skeletal muscle info; still leaves no rationale for separate page of Muscle tissue imo - but it seems we agree to differ on this; thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

International Association for Plant Taxonomy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Heraldry/tinctures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Cynareae stubs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Marsileaceae has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 22 § Works by Scottish writers categories with one page on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Who: All members of the public, especially active Wikimedians. What: Mission Bay Wiknic & Bonfire. When: Saturday 1 August, 4:00PM/1600 PDT until 10:00PM/2200 PDT Where: Vacation Isle, Mission Bay

The next day: Chula Vista edit-a-thon/salon When: Sunday 2 August, 1:15PM/1315 PDT until 4:15PM/1615 PDT Where: Chula Vista Public Library Civic Center Branch

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN ) Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs) Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 22:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list, and from future San Diego Wiknic invitations by removing your name from the San Diego Wiknic mail list.