User talk:Sarr Cat/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

AfC notification: Draft:Genetically modified potato has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Genetically modified potato. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Plant categorization

Hi, I appreciate that your changes of categorization to Zantedeschia articles were in good faith, but please see WP:PLANTS/Categorization. Categories don't have to follow the taxonomic hierarchy exactly, and in fact rarely do so. Rather they need to be of a "reasonable size". Opinions differ on what this is; I've gone as low as 10 but other WP:PLANTS editors think this is too low. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Another point: although it does at first sight seem redundant, policy is that articles on plant genera are placed in one taxonomic category (the genus itself, a subfamily, a family, an order, or even a higher taxon, depending on the size of the category that will result) and a "TAXON genera" category, which typically isn't the same taxon as the taxonomic category. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Yeah, all I have ever done on Wikipedia in the 3+ years I've used it is vandalize because it's all I know how to do. (Dynamic IP FTW). But I see that you used to make random edits at odd hours of the morning too. How do you resist the urge to vandalize all the pages and where can I learn how to actually help out Wikipedia? 173.84.68.166 (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like I should actually use that account I created a while back for some good. And by the way, you have excellent diction for a high schooler and I really like the views you express on your user page. See you on the flip side! 173.84.68.166 (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Drosera categories

Hi. I see you took some initiative to subdivide Category:Drosera by subgenus and section. I'm not sure I entirely understand the rationale for doing so and I was just going to revert and nominate the categories for deletion, but thought I'd ask for your motivation first. The genus Drosera isn't prohibitively large enough that the genus category would be so overwhelmingly full that navigation would become difficult -- there's no need to WP:DIFFUSE the genus category into lower taxonomic ranks. I've always thought that it is nice to have all our articles on a genus categorized into a single genus category, sorted with sortkeys by the first letter of the specific epithet. I hope that makes sense to you. As far as I can tell, subdividing a genus category by its subgeneric taxa is highly unusual and hinders navigation, the ultimate purpose of the category system. I'd like to hear your thoughts though, and leave any comments here. I would very much like to restore the category to the way it was fairly soon. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, whatever, you can delete it if you want What is the size limit considered "prohibitively large". I made there categories because in cultivation, often Drosera are divided into general groupings that share the same care requirements, like "tuberous sundews", "pygmy sundews", "temperate sundews", etc. I was going along with the same thing, but I had never looked into the taxonomy of Drosera before (although i was aware of the general horticultural groupings, and i thought i might as well follow the taxonomic ranks. But, go ahead and undo it if you feel it isn't necessary. SarrCat ∑;3 22:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
There really is no size limit to categories and I can only think of a handful of examples where diffusing a large genus category to its subgenera or sections would be useful - maybe Bulbophyllum when we have thousands of articles and if we have a relatively stable subgeneric taxonomy. See WP:DIFFUSE for some advice on these sorts of things. You'll also find some specific plant category advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization. If your goal is to improve the way users find articles on topics such as tuberous sundews, the best way to do that is to write an article and provide a redirect to it from the vernacular name, like I did by redirecting tuberous sundew to Drosera subg. Ergaleium. Pygmy sundews aren't as easy because I believe they're spread across a few subgeneric ranks. In that case, a set-index article (example: buttonbush) would be useful at the title pygmy sundew. Temperate sundew runs into the same issue, as no one subgeneric rank encompasses all sundews that are temperate and excludes those that are not. I hope that helps! Let me know if I can be of any assistance in the future. Rkitko (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
According to [this], all pygmies are in section Lamprolepis except D. pygmaea, but hey, it could be outdated, mabey you have a better source?>. Anyways I agree now that using the common names of these groupings would be better in this situation, especially for the "temperate" group, not being an actual taxonomic rank of any kind. That ways the more obscure name won't just pass over readers heads. SarrCat ∑;3 00:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're right -- I was referring to the fact that D. pygmaea isn't grouped with the rest of the pygmies. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know that I upmerged the content of those categories back to Category:Drosera and deleted the three section/subgenus categories you had created per our discussion above. By any chance do you have access to Allen Lowrie's most recent books on the carnivorous plants of Australia, the three-volume Magnum Opus published by RedFern? I haven't had the pleasure of reading a copy, but I hear there are some new taxa that we should add to List of Drosera species and Taxonomy of Drosera and I'm sure there are new species articles that could be written based on that material. That would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, no I don't happen to have a copy of that, but it would certainly be helpful if I did! Ill see if I can find any information from it online, from other people with a copy, look through the library, look through google books, etc.SarrCat ∑;3 18:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Sarr Cat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [[:Abiogenesis]]. Thank you. --Epetre (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Genetically modified potato has been accepted

Genetically modified potato, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Scotch bonnet (sea snail) article improvement

Hello Sarr Cat, The GA review of this article is already underway, and there are some changes that need making. I have rapidly tried to carry out a number of them today, although not quite perfectly (!), and there are others items that I have not touched and may not be able to get to over the next few days as I am packing and will be traveling all day on Saturday from before dawn to late in the pm. I would be very grateful if you want to pitch in and help. If you read my comments in response to the reviewer's comments you will see what needs fixing. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

geoengineering

Hi can we get this dumb move reversed / fixed asap? Your arguments on the RM page is absolutely correct - seems someone with an agenda has borked the process. Howdo we get this moved forward? andrewjlockley 94.119.89.240 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:March Against Monsanto

I take some issue wit the sentence immediately following this quotation, Canal was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced healthy food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children (emphasis mine) This implies that GM food is unhealthy, a MOS:CONTRACTION to the statement of scientific consensus on the safety of GM food earlier in the article.

Hi, Sarr Cat. Canal's concern with food safety (and by extension the health of her children, since she was shopping for food for them) is one of the primary concerns that led her to start the movement. Part of this statement has to do with the high price of non-GMO organic food compared to the relatively cheap cost of GMOs (or rather, unlabeled food assumed to be GMO). This does not imply GMO food is unhealthy, it implies that Canal thinks that anything unlabeled is suspect, and it implies that she thinks only non-GMO organics is healthier. Whether GMO food is safe or not, the fact remains that the primary concern is with herbicide-resistant GMO crops, herbicides which have not been shown to be either "harmless" or perfectly safe. Regardless, it's still her opinion, which is both relevant to the topic and a common concern of those who wish to avoid herbicides and GMOs. I don't see what her concerns here have to do with the scientific consensus on the safety of GMO food. Further, supporting information is covered in Glyphosate#Human toxicity and Herbicide#Health and environmental effects. I should also point out that historically, in almost every claim about health effects from pesticides and herbicides impacting human health from consuming agricultural products, there has been an enormous amount of so-called "disagreement and controversy" injected by the accused parties, as a strategic way to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the science. Part of what Canal and others are objecting to is the corporate-controlled media (the famous Fox news and bovine somatotropin controversy is only one of dozens of examples) and regulatory captured environment where industry representatives walk through a revolving door between government and the companies they are supposed to regulate while pushing corporate COI over and above public health and safety concerns. I don't see any problems here. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

see my response at Talk:March Against MonsantoSarrCat ∑;3 01:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I separated the discussion into its constituent sections so as not to distract from the RfC. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok, sorry about that! SarrCat ∑;3 02:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Let's Encrypt Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Let's Encrypt Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. kashmiri TALK 17:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just go ahead and delete it, I see you have replaced it with an SVG file, and it is my understanding that SVG is the preferred file format for logos on Wikipedia. Thanks! SarrCat ∑;3 01:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the above is a standard warning placed automatically on uploader's page when tagging an image for deletion. Apologies it was not personalised. The image will be deleted by admins once the 7-day deadline has passed. Regards, kashmiri TALK 08:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Traditional African medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A camas pocket gopher for you!

A camas pocket gopher for you!
Thanks for discussing the Elsevier/Wikipedia Library issue. I would have given you coffee but you are a cat, so I gave you a rodent. I did not want you to eat the rodent so I gave one that defends theirself. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Meow? o_0 SarrCat ∑;3 17:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Overly specific categories

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but do we really need categories like "Cacti in the United States Botanic Garden"? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of a policy or anything, it just seems odd -- what do we gain by that category? Is it a category that anyone will ever use, or will they just look for cactus and botanical gardens as separate categories or search terms? (Maybe there's something I'm missing, I haven't been particularly active here in years.) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, my reason for creating it was that there were hundreds of images in the category "Specimens in the United States Botanic Garden" (including images that are/were in the more general category "United States Botanic Garden" that focused on individual specimens rather than on the garden as a whole and thus belong in the "Specimens" subcategory). To make it easier for someone to find the type of specimen they were looking for, I figured that their digital representations should be organized by type of plant, like they tend to be in the physical gardens. Although the displays arent strictly by taxonomic order in the gardens, but they nonetheless have some degree of order, probably more because of the plants cultivation requirements than anything else. Anyways, I understand that one should avoid overcategorization, and wouldn't get more specific than broad groupings of plants, unless a specific sub-grouping actually had enough media to warrant a separate category. Although at that point, I would probably also be questioning if commons actually needs hundreds of photos of a particular species of orchid, for example :) SarrCat ∑;3 09:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boletus pinophilus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. 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) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

List of organisms by chromosome count

I replaced your edit where you added a bunch of blank lines with a {{clear}}. Could you verify this still has the effect you desire? Thanks, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Works fine, Thanks! SarrCat ∑;3 21:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin off. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to LEL

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 12:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carnivorous plants of North America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darlingtonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Biology Fortified Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Biology Fortified Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Sarr Cat: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message