User talk:Nadiatalent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

SORRY!

ARAGH! I ADD THE SECTION, ITS FINE. I REEDIT IT TO ADD MY SIGNATURE, AND IT MAKES IT ALL WEIRD. SUPER SORRY! Smiler121 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed!

I FIXED YOUR PAGE (I had messed it up ☹ )!!! I WAS USING BETA, SO IT MESSED EVERYTHING UP. I STOPPED USING BETA, AND NOW I CAN CHANGE THINGS WITHOUT RUINING EVERYTHING! WEEEEE!☺ Smiler121 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Osteomeles anthyllidifolia

Hi, the first edit I made to Osteomeles anthyllidifolia was ok, I added an e to the word pah‘e so that it became pahe‘e (Section non-medicinal uses). That one was fine. Then, I tried to add a common name at the top of the page (Hawaiian Rose), next to Hawaiian Hawthorne. I forgot to remove the extra < p > and < / p > tags that it automatically adds on. It would be nice if you could do that.Smiler121 (my talk page ☎) 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I dont quite see what you are talking about. I added the hawaiian word for taro and specified which islands is is found on. Are you talking about what I added and then deleted? Let me know on my talk page.Smiler121 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I removed it because I am not sure if it is wrong. That book that I was looking at was printed a while ago (not that long, but its definitetly not the most current). I am going to do a little more reaserch on it and see what i find out.Smiler121 (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please be more careful with your facts. The Equisetopsida does not include the whisk ferns; the whisk ferns are in the Psilotopsida. Most Lycopodiophyta do not have microsporangia; only Selaginella and the Isoetopsida do (the Lycopodiaceae have microphylls, but only a single kind of sporangium in their strobilus. --EncycloPetey 20:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Crataegus × lavallei

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Crataegus × lavallei, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Crataegus lavallei. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• That message above was actually caused by cut & paste move - the problem with them is that the article histories are left behind, and the license used in Wikipedia requires attribution. There's more info on the canned message at {{uw-c&pmove}}. When moving articles, it's preferable to do it through the move tab located on top of the screen: it takes care of histories, talk pages and leaves redirects at the old location. I have tagged Crataegus × lavallei for history merge - this simply means your watchlist will soon have a few extra entries. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Crataegus articles

Hi. I don't know all that much about botany, but I have been "disambiguating" the Hawthorn page for about a year. I found a few of you pages that linked to that page and I fixed the links to point (I hope) to the correct pages instead, or I de-linked the word when it was right next to a valid link to Crataegus. If you will, please check my work. If you would, please try to pick the correct dab for "hawthorn" for any additional article3s you create, or you can simply proceed and I will come around eventually and make my best guess, whichever is easier for you. -Arch dude (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Hi,Thanks for fixing that, I didn't notice the doubling of the links. I don't know which pages you've changed, but if it's just Hawthorn/Crataegus and not choosing a different species, there shouldn't be a problem (unless Photinia could be an option). Nadiatalent (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Yeah, can`t figure out why those keep breaking. Vistro (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Posted from Wii HB app*

Why the subscript?

None of the sources that I've looked at use a subscript for F1 hybrid. What's up? Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you looking at? Try Britannica online http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/199610/F1-hybrid, or any genetics textbook. Nadiatalent (talk)

:I was looking at both the sources that are cited in the article and the books found by google book search, and didn't encounter a single one with the subscript (though if I had looked further I might have found one). Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking more books, I see the subscript is not so uncommon. Probably need to mention that it's written both ways, and provide sources, especially if you have one that explains what it means as a subscript (or otherwise). Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So how about considering the other changes that you backed out so flippantly, rather than going into a tailspin over getting Wikipedia to match other sources that have sloppy typesetting? You've reverted to a statement about hysteresis, which makes no sense in this context ... I will not touch this page again!!Nadiatalent (talk)

Flippantly? Tailspin? Reliable sources with "sloppy typesetting"? I responded to the substantive part on the article talk page where you copied this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Nadiatalent. I've responded to your question at my talk. Hamamelis (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reassortment and chromosomal crossover

Hi there. I noticed your recent expansion of Reassortment, and left a note on that article's talk page regarding a concern of mine. Any feedback there would be appreciated. Regards, Emw2012 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)<

Quince

In a recent edit summary you ask "what's wrong with a link to a recipe?" In this particular case, besides being a self-published source (blog), the link was one of many added throughout Wikipedia, (almost certainly) by the website's owner. I don't like to see this type of conflict of interest activity take advantage of the open nature of Wikipedia to generate revenue for the owner by driving traffic to an adsense website.

In many articles, recipe links can be replaced with a single link to Wikibooks Cookbook, b:Cookbook:Quince in this case. Unfortunately there are no recipes there related to quince yet. I'm wondering if you are willing to reconsider the inclusion of the "len.ro" link and if there is a solution we can both be satisfied with. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Synonymy edits

Hello Nadiatalent, I trust your expertise as a botanist that your synonym edits to Crataegus diffusa, C.. dunbarii and the new article C. iracunda (...and the article you may be creating as I write this, C. scabrida) were highly accurate. However, in doing so the entire history of the former two articles (newly made into redirects) were left behind along with their associated talk pages. In order for this not to happen, the articles should always be "moved" to the new article title instead, which transports the history of edits under the old title, along with all of the page itself, to the new title. From there whatever additional edits that need to be done to it can follow. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the talk page gets whisked along in the move as well, because I've never moved a page that already had a talk page attached to it. (but I suspect it takes a separate move)Please tell me if you know how to go about doing this, and if you need any help.Peace, Hamamelis (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

==Thanks==

Thanks for catching my reference repair error on Whitebeam. Will watch the mouse more carefully next time! Malcomsbridge (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Armen Takhtajan

Sorry, but may you add the source for Armen Takhtajan's information? --91.77.252.179 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're correct

Hi, Nadia - Chiku is indeed just another common name for sapodilla. I found it in an old book by E. J. H. Corner, using Achras as the genus. Whoever originally put that there was fulla balloney. I just put it in alphabetical order, since it was at the end. Thanks for pitching it. Hamamelis (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My Copyright

Copyright image. Hi, the image that you have added (with citation) to the Prunus maximowiczii taxobox appears to be copyrighted, see [1] :-( Nadiatalent (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, That's my copyright. Read the description pages: it's from my own work. Nickrz (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Bruce Marlin

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bruce_Marlin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Marlin (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Appearance vs. Inedibleness

Hi, Nadia. Noticing you removed osage oranges from the list of indedible fruits: I think the thrust of the article is on 'is it edible', despite that opening sentence, not 'does it appear to be edible'. Appearances are subjective, and although I happen to agree with you that osage oranges look awful to eat, someone else might not see it the same way - and might try to make orange juice from one. I've noticed under some trees around here where deer have tried some, and the fruit always shows just one great big bite taken, and the rued mouthful within a few feet of it. I know deer aren't humans, but it isn't much of a stretch to imagin an adventurous person giving it a go. And they really are inedible. Hamamelis (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:Oops! Corrected. I was taking Maclura out of various lists, and hit the inedible fruits list by mistake. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5