Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:09, 9 July 2016

Today is Wednesday, January 22, 2025; it is now 21:08 (UTC/GMT )

• Please assume mutual good faith when communicating here.

This is Look2See1's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
He likes tea. <ref>  </ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook">
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/>

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = ]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Thanks

Thanks for the edit on the recent merge, will help
--George2001hi (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Contributions

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the layout of Tahrir Square. Looking at your contributions, it looks like you're doing a great job of editing articles about Egypt at a time when many of us want to learn more. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tubificina

You added smth to the article which breaks the markup, and I can not figure out what it should have been. Could you please have a look. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your question. The Tubificina article appears correct to me. — Look2See1 t a l k → 09:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The markup was corrected by another editor. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Melaleucas not trees

Hello Look2See1,

Thanks for your edit to List of Melaleuca species. You appear to know more about categories than I do - however, it does not seem correct to include List of Melaleuca species in a "List of Trees". You originally added that category in September 2010 when few of the Melaleuca articles were written. I removed it a few weeks ago because only a (fairly small) percentage of melaleucas can be classified as "trees". Perhaps the ones you're familiar with (maybe the U.S. or Canada?) are trees but most are actually shrubs - some very low shrubs at that. Melaleuca apodocephala, for example, grows to a height of 2 inches (4cm) max! As I said, perhaps you know more about categories than I do - maybe if one in a list of 500 plants is a tree then it's okay to include all in a list of trees. Seems strange to me though. Gderrin (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Botanical authorities do not follow the pattern used in zoology

Hi, you have been adding categories such as Category:Taxa named by John Torrey, Category:Taxa named by Augustin Pyramus de Candolle when that is not considered to be the case in botanical nomenclature. For example, Purshia DC. ex Poir. was named by Poiret in 1816, and although De Candolle named it again in an 1818 publication, his name is illegitimate. There was an earlier manuscript of De Candolle's which Poiret used as a basis, but that is not a validly published name. Purshia stansburyana (Torr.) Henrickson was called Cowania stansburyana by John Torrey. In zoology there is a pattern similar to what you have done, that the person who first gave a name, any name, to a taxon, is listed ever after, even if they blundered badly on the taxonomy, but that is not how botanical nomenclature works. If the species name is wrong, then the taxon assignment is wrong, so it cannot be said that the person named the taxon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I endorse Sminthopsis84's point. Actually, I'm not sure of the value of these categories; is the idea to have one for every person who named a taxon? Or just the "major" people? If so, how are they selected?

If these categories are to be used, it would be better to name them as per the "Taxa described in" categories. Firstly, "first scientifically described by", which seems to be the meaning of a category like Plants described in 1753, works for both the botanical and zoological codes, which treat names somewhat differently; secondly, it's better to separate names under different codes, as per "Animals described in ..." and "Plants described in ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment that if only "major people" are to be so treated, the notion that certain people's opinions count more than those of others is inflammatory in botanical nomenclature, which has fought long and hard against it in, for example, overturning the Kew Rule. I would oppose such an approach to categorization. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. Wherever you are getting this information from, it is way off the mark. I can't even begin to imagine a source that could produce this edit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And after looking at the genus Calliandra generally, I conclude that you are tossing all the species in that genus into Category:Taxa named by George Bentham. No, George Bentham did not name all of the species in the genus!! Please remind yourself of what taxon means. (Bentham also didn't claim that he himself was a taxon, as this edit suggests; in fact, I'm quite sure that he would have been horrified by the suggestion.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Neither did John Torrey name Torreya after himself as suggested here. Gderrin (talk)

Final warning

As you've been warned numerous times before, this is your final warning: if you persist in edits like this one, both adding irrelevant categories and replacing English descriptions with bulleted bits lacking article links, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Category Barnstar
		Thanks for your tireless work with categories, particularly your awesome development of the Category:Outdoor recreation by country branch I just recently introduced, but without filling it with life! Now this previously missing aspect is getting tangible. Thanks! --PanchoS (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Mindanao island group

Hi. Just so you know, Mindanao is NOT a region. As there is no separate article on Mindanao (region), and there will never be, those will be undone as we dont have Luzon (region) and Visayas (region) either.--RioHondo (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mindanao island group IS a valid administrative designation, per the[REDACTED] article Island groups of the Philippines and parent Category:Island groups of the Philippines. The Mindanao island group is 1 of the 3 administrative Philippine island group divisions, for those islands located in the southern Philippines, including its main one, Mindanao Island.

The other 2 other island group divisions are Luzon (northern Philippines) and Visayas (central Philippines).

The history of the 'Mindanao island group' has notable distinctions from the rest of the country in the Luzon & Visayas island groups, including successfully resisting incorporation into the colonial era Spanish East Indies, and having strong and meaningful Islamic influences within its historical traditions and contemporary politics.

Please see more information, my thoughts on this, and possible category renaming options at Category talk:History of Mindanao (region). Please assume good faith — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrative divisions? You are wrong from the get go. We only have regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and sitios/puroks as administrative divisions. Island groups are just geographic divisions. The problem is you dont consult, and you dont pay attention to edit summaries, or to your talk page. Its just only now.--RioHondo (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So it is clear:

Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions: Provinces of the Philippines

Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions: Cities of the Philippines and Municipalities of the Philippines

Category:Third-level administrative country subdivisions: Barangays of the Philippines

The Regions of the Philippines actually are more geographic than actual administrative (except for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The island groups certainly are no administrative jurisdictions.--RioHondo (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Add: So if you wish to carry out your categories: it should be per province (1st level) or at most per region (especially for ARMM). Island group-wide categories are very superficial and pointless.--RioHondo (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken RioHondo, Island group-wide categories can be very meaningful and useful to[REDACTED] users not residing on the country's islands nor experts in Philippine subdivisions and nomenclature. On other continents we hear the 'region name' used, as news reports on the inauguration of President Rodrigo Duterte today have always included "he is the first president from from the country's southern region of Mindanao." Perhaps superficially imprecise for you, but a very meaningful heritage placemaking phrase for some of us elsewhere. Alas, Davao City and its 182 barangays are placeless from abroad. This is an international online encyclopedia, and users who are interested in the Philippines, but will probably never become adept (such as myself) at first/second/third-level administrative country subdivisions, in my opinion deserve a 'workable on ramp' to begin exploring the country beyond Manilla.

Respectfully — Look2See1 t a l k → 08:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages. Dschslavaparlez moi 06:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dschslava, my posting/reply at the Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism page:

"RioHondo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism on Mindanao Philippine history-related categories and subcategories.

They repeatedly removed original Category:History of Mindanao and 'focused' Category:History of Mindanao (region) from the same relevant articles and categories repeatedly, and then proposing to speedily delete it because it was empty has neither integrity nor validity. RioHondo removed over 20 categories from it 1-3 times between ~22:20, 30 June 2016 and ~23:07, 30 June 2016 (so far) ( & ‎; and a third time ~an hour later.

The Mindanao island group/region is a valid administrative designation, per the[REDACTED] article Island groups of the Philippines and parent Category:Island groups of the Philippines. The Mindanao island group/region is 1 of the 3 administrative Philippine island group divisions, for those islands located in the southern Philippines, including its main one, Mindanao Island. The other 2 other island group divisions are Luzon (northern Philippines) and Visayas (central Philippines). :::The history of the 'Mindanao island group' has notable distinctions from the rest of the country in the Luzon & Visayas island groups, including successfully resisting incorporation into the colonial era Spanish East Indies, and having strong and meaningful Islamic influences within its historical traditions and contemporary politics.

Please see more information at Category talk:History of Mindanao (region), including category's original naming (Category:History of Mindanao), current name (Category:History of Mindanao (region)), and potential renaming (e.g. Category:History of Mindanao (island group) or Category:History of Mindanao), & other options. — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)"

It was replaced there by you with:

"Note: both parties appear to be involved in multiple edit wars. Will try to resolve. Dschslavaparlez moi 06:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)"

Thank you for that post Dschslava. I have no investment in the category's final name, but do find the history of that "whole" (administrative) 'island group' and (casual) geographic 'region' very interesting and complex. With the Philippines' new President Rodrigo Duterte being the first ever from the Mindanao island group, and with his own complex local political history on the island of Mindanao,[REDACTED] users may become more interested/curious about the area's history & politics. I am distressed that RioHondo appears to need to destroy and 'disappear' good will efforts, instead of working to improve the categorization nomenclature. The intention of my reverts was to keep interim placemarkers on the articles/subcategories until there is a new revision consensus. — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That is because you insist that Mindanao (region) is an administrative region. And that Occidental Mindoro and Oriental Mindoro belong to Mindanao. Thats pure vandalism but you still kept on reverting.--RioHondo (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are very wrong and quite ignorant about my thoughts and motivations RioHondo. I am insisting nothing. There's no vandalism, just protecting information categorization until this situation is resolved. Please stop deleting Category:History of Mindanao (region) until the editing community reaches consensus. — Look2See1 t a l k → 09:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, where are you getting this information about botanical authorities from?

Please tell me how you come up with edits such as this one that ascribe a taxon named by Frits Johansen to Reid Venable Moran? If there is a database somewhere that has such tangled information in it, then the administrators need to be made aware of the problem, or the database should be listed here as one to avoid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If you persist in the disruption that has prompted this warning and all of others on your talk page, or persist in brushing them off as "rude/unconstructive provocations", longer blocks will be imposed, and an indefinite block will be likely. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)