Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your host, public01.edin.org (193.39.159.73), is registered to The City of Edinburgh Council, Edinburgh; ASN 56595 and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.
If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
July 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scribblenauts, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automatedcomputer program called ClueBot NG.
Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Craigmillar Castle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
of Scots. Much of the woodland within the castle estate dates from the early to mid 19th century.<ref name=GDL/
//www.craigmillarcastle.com craigmillarcastle.com] History and photographs of Craigmillar Castle]
You're right; just have a subliminal contempt for / suspicion of a tree that's effectively claimed to be DED resistant, but which has never been scientifically tested. I'm currently evaluating three Spanish U. minor clones which #have been proven to be very resistant (on a par with 'Sapporo A G') to DED, so who knows? Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had the sizes / prices started somewhat lower, I'd have bought a few and sent them to Cemagref France for inoculation with the pathogen, as I have done with other 'promising' native trees, such as the Gittisham wych elm (no resistance whatsoever, all died within two weeks). So far, only an unknown hybrid growing at what was Vicary Gibbs' Aldenham Estate has shewn any promise, with a resistance of about 3 out of 5. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been copied photos of a putative laevis x glabra hybrid, growing in a cemetery in or near Edinburgh. Do you have any knowledge of it? Would much appreciate details.
Regards, Ptelea (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, very (as) interesting, but I'm not sure its the same tree. The photo I have is of a single tree definitely in a churchyard / cemetery. The close up of the leaves shows a very oblique base, unmistakably glabra-like. Who would have been hybridizing these trees? Regards,Ptelea (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regret I don't know which cemetery; the only clue in one of the photos is that the site is above a slope, as the limited view behind the tree only features rooftops. The buttressing at the base of the trunk obviously suggests laevis, meanwhile the bases of the leaves are so asymmetric as can only suggest glabra influence; the margins are simply serrate. I don't know the city very well, but from Google Earth and Streetview, Warriston is a possibility. The ID was made by the city's tree officer, and the trunk bears a blue circular tag, but the focus isn't sharp enough to read it. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've since learnt the tree is in the North Merchiston Cemetery, and that the ID was in fact made by an amateur pteleologist based in Brighton. My contact at the RBGE is very sceptical about it, considering it just another form of laevis. Accordingly, I'm not investigating it further. A false alarm, but thanks for your input anyway. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Probable elm extinctions
Agreed, such postulations are out of place without a cited reference. Not too sure about your Brighton cv. IDs such as Muscaviensis, doubtless the opinion of the resident elm expert there. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U. minor 'Suberosa'?
Regret I'm with Richens on this one. I have found such corky trees randomly distributed across the countryside of southern France, the most extreme near the Mont St Victoire visitor centre on the approach to Le Tholonet. I started my elm collection with the gift of seeds from openly-pollinated 'Accolades' sent by the Morton Arb.; the variation in form and foliage has been remarkable with, in one case only, a tree with branching festooned with broad corky wings throughout. Ergo, I'm inclined to believe this minor form is just random, an accident of genetic pairing, and not necessarily clones of cultivated trees although I'm sure they exist. I have sampled the seeds of the Goodyer Elm over the years, but none ever germinated, reinforcing the notion this tree has only ever reproduced vegetatively, and thus wherever cloned by man has qualified as a true cultivar. 'Ordinary' Field Elm, on the other hand, particularly in southern Europe, can produce vast quantities of viable seed, and with it thousands of genetic variants, some producing corky wings. As ever, the definitive answer would seem to lie with DNA analysis, but Forest Research here is now declining such work with Ulmus. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Coritana' a bridge too far, a taxon never accepted even in its 'day' From the Plant List: Ulmus coritana Melville is an unresolved name. The record derives from WCSP (in review) (data supplied on 2012-03-26) which does not establish this name either as an accepted name or as a synonym with original publication details: J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 53: 263 1949. From Bean: This controversial species was described by Dr Melville in 1949 (Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.), Vol. 53, pp. 263-71). As interpreted by him it has a wide range in central England, from the Thames to the Trent and from Warwick to E. Anglia, the var. rotundifolia being more southern in distribution and grading northward into var. angustifolia. It is not recognised as distinct from U. carpinifolia in the second edition of Clapham, Tutin and Warburg, Flora of the British Isles, and is considered by R. H. Richens to be ‘an artificial aggregate’.
Never had much faith in Melville's taxonomy. In the words of my French counterpart: Melville saw hybrids everywhere. Not that I'm suggesting coritana is. Not sure about boissieri, we really know so little about it. I tried for years to get a translation of Grudzinskaya'a paper but failed, and the tree, apparently endemic to the Zagros mountains, has become confused with street elms in Isfahan. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U. minor 'Variegata' etc.
As the names have already been used in the past, the moves reverting to former names cannot be accepted, and therefore require the services of an administrator to sort out. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U. minor 'Variegata' was changed to U. minor subsp. minor 'Variegata', and as such can't be reverted via the 'Move' facility. Regards
Thanks; the original image was of a Siberian Elm growing at Groningen, and was uploaded in error to the Poort Bulten page by our Serbian collaborator. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; its an anomaly that's always bothered me, but blame Loudon, he applied the taxon to two different trees. What we need is an authority like Max prepared to rechristen the Chichester tree. Regret I know of no local specimens to take leaves from; best bet would be Richard Smith, who has made study of the tree his retirement MO; I'll send you his email address. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
December 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ulmus 'Purpurea' has been reverted. Your edit here to Ulmus 'Purpurea' was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://blomsterbo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/almar.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Ulmus glabra 'Corylifolia Purpurea' have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to Ulmus glabra 'Corylifolia Purpurea' was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://blomsterbo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/almar.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please carefully read all that is below, to ensure that your change does not get reverted.
Greetings, my name is !dave, and I noticed you that you added or changed information to South Gyle, but you did not supply a reliable source to verify what you wrote, or you did not supply a source at all. Instead of immediately reverting your changes, I am giving you 24 hours to supply a reliable source for your change. I will revert after this point. Thank you for your understanding.
Confused? Click 'Expand' on the boxes below to explain more!
What do I mean by reliable source?
Simply explained, a reliable source is known for good fact-checking. The source can be trusted. Reliable sources are therefore not blogs or "self-published sources" (see WP:SPS for explanation), tabloid newspapers or anything that doesn't seem too interested in providing factual information.
How do I add a reference?
For a standard web reference
Next to what you wrote, insert <ref>{{cite web|url=INSERT THE URL HERE|title=INSERT THE PAGE TITLE HERE|accessdate=ENTER TODAY'S FULL DATE|work=INSERT THE WEBSITE'S NAME}}</ref>
The above is the basic information required in a reference. For more parameters, including the date of the work and author, see Template:Cite web.
This will appear like:
Arthur always likes to eat cheese, but not Andrew.[1]
Huh, turns out you are right you did make a new page, the early edits didn't have the hyperlink (or if they did I missed it) as I was editing on my phone as I was rebuilding my pc at the time Daniel0wellby (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your recent edit to King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}.
