Hello, Robert Jan van de Hoek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Cycloxanthops novemdentatus. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! UaMaol (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Ballona Wetlands. I tried to fix several of your edits, but ended up reverting all of them, as it would have been difficult to pick through the entire edit. My concern is that while some of your edits were sourced, many others were unsourced and appeared to be original research and promotional (eg. the section about bulldozing). Also, some of your wording was unencyclopedic (eg. "sadly"), and some edits removed sourced content. Please take a moment to read the links in the welcome message above. Also, Help:Referencing for beginners and MOS:WTW may help. Please feel free to ask questions. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magnolia677. I thank you and appreciate your edits and sharing your expertise and experience with me.

I will check welcome message links you suggested. Thanks a whole lot.

And thank you for fixing some edits. I did spend a lot of time making edits that are accurate.

FYI, I noticed that many sentences in this Wikipedia Ballona Wetland page were incomplete and/or inaccurate and not sourced, so I considered it okay to be correcting them, and also not sourcing them, as they were obvious axiomatic statements.

Except for my one big mistaken word use of “sadly” I think the words and sentences that I edited do attempt to convey knowledge in a neutral, objective, and accurate manner, yet typos and some minor grammatical and structural sentence errors do come into play, which is why editing and wordsmithing and proofreading are so very important, and that is why I like Wikipedia and the philosophy and ethics that I am learning as a new editor.

Cheers back to you as well. Again, thank you and grateful.

Peace, Robert

PS: I am just learning to edit Wikipedia with an interest to be accurate and follow the rules.

Regarding the use of “sadly” I wondered if that term would be okay, and now wished that I did not use that word. Do you think the rest of the sentence is okay as it is factual that Southern California Gas Company owns a portion of the Ballona Wetlands habitat. Assessor maps and news articles make reference to their having their Gas facility on the Ballona Wetlands. Also, USGS topographic maps show the Gas Company infrastructure on the Ballona Wetlands.

The term, bulldozing, is used in news articles, and the cited EIR states that bulldozers will be used to excavate the Ballona Wetlands, so that is factual. Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your entire edit is still there in the page history. If you like I can transfer it to your sandbox to work on. Many of your edits were just fine. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magnolia677. Can you please assist with returning the link for Sierrra Club to my edit which you removed.

The location is in the second paragraph at the second sentence beginning with the word, Among, and I had created a link for “Sierra Club” which has a web site for the Ballona Wetlands Restoration Committee.

Thank you. Peace. Cheers, Robert Jan van de Hoek Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I personally wouldn't add that link, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and WP:LINKFARM, but you are welcome to. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again Magnolia677. Thank you for your opinion and thoughts, and for welcoming me to make the edits, and for assisting me in my confidence and empowerment as a new and continuing editor at Wikipedia. Are my comments to you being added here, the right place and format to do so? Am I using the term, 'Wiki' correctly in the following phrase, if I say: "I am happy and glad to be a wiki." Thanks again for being in communication and conversation, with guidance and support. Much appreciated. Grateful as well. Peace, Robert Jan van de Hoek.

Good Morning Magnolia677: You have been so helpful and courteous with assisting me as a new editor, that I ask you again for some editing advice and assistance. At the Ballona Wetlands Wikipedia site, I made several small edits a short time ago.

1. I removed the word "the" preceding "Ballona Wetlands Land Trust" in the second paragraph, near the end of the sentence, of the Ballona Wetlands wikipedia page.

2. In the first paragraph added a single letter, "l" to "de" in order to correct the spelling to "del" as in Marina del Rey, in the first paragraph of the Ballona Wetlands wikipedia page.

3. I added "Sierra Club" as an external link, placing this group (organization) at the head of the external links for the Ballona Wetlands wikipedia page. Does this look to you that I have correctly added the "Sierra Club" including the asterisk?

4. At the very end of the second paragraph of the Ballona Wetlands Wikipedia page, I added pathway link to "Sierra Club" but there is a little blue box still present, which does not seem correct. Would you confirm and possibly make an edit if that box should not be there? Thanks. Peace, Robert Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Yet Again Magnolia677. Would you know why there are a set of double brackets surrounding the group name "Friends of Ballona Wetlands" in the second paragraph of the Ballona Wetlands Wikipedia page? Peace, RobertRobert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Double brackets link to a Wikipedia article, and single brackets link to an external website. Eg. General Motors and General Motors (add a space after the external link and before the text). If you need to call another editor to your page you need to "ping" them or they won't know. Eg. {{ping|Magnolia677}}. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magnolia677. Would this message be the right place and time to do a 'ping' with you you, and if so, how do I use the 'Eg.' example you shared and suggested I use? I do not understand the new brackets surround nowise, nor the brackets of the ping magnolia 677? Regarding my specific edit question, I would please like your advice regarding the edit I made on Ballona Wetlands wikpedia page/site. Your edit of double brackets of Sierra Club, now shows me that the public is led to the general web site of the Sierra Club, where the public will find no discussion of Ballona Wetlands, but only find information on the mission, and how to get involved, join, and so forth. Unless there is a link to the specific Sierra Club policy and campaign efforts for the Ballona Wetlands, there is no way for the public to know the position of the Sierra Club on the Ballona Wetlands. The public would like easy and transparent access to knowledge of conservation issues regarding the Ballona Wetlands, which can only be provided with the link that I have added. My uncertainty is if it is okay for the small box to appear at the end of the Sierra Club link? Do you know if that is okay in the main introductory portion of the Ballona Wetlands wikipedia web site? In the External Links, I do see that the small box to the rights of various groups including Sierra Club is okay to appear, so it seems to me that would be okay elsewhere on the Ballona Wetlands wikipedia site. As a new editor, I am still learning the rules, and am so glad that experience editors, such as yourself, are willing and helpful to help new editors. I hope you and other experienced editors understand what I am attempting to communicate. I feel that I have written entirely too long of a message, so I would like to apologize if I have done so. Thanks again, Magnolia677, for your past communication with such good input and advice for this new editor. Peace, Robert van de HoekRobert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Robert jan van de Hoek, from its old location at User:Robert Jan van de Hoek/Robert jan van de hoek. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robert jan van de Hoek and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Robert jan van de Hoek, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert Jan van de Hoek! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Beaudette Foundation, from its old location at User:Robert Jan van de Hoek/Beaudette Foundation. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. KylieTastic (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Beaudette Foundation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Beaudette Foundation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited E. Yale Dawson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On March 1986 MuffySeville56 (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Robert Jan van de Hoek and I am not born on that date of 1986. Who did this and why? Thanks MuffySeville56 for noticing and making this suspect.Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Yerba Mansa.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Yerba Mansa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Yerba Mansa.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. (See section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then you should do two things. First, please state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions. Second, please add the relevant copyright tag.
• The image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. (See section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. Ntx61 (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've noticed both of your edits on both subjects Pramila Jayapal as well as Ted Lieu. Please note that per MOS:Ethnicity which specifies wikipedia rules on biography leads, place of birth, previous nationalities, and/or ethnicity are not included in the leads. Both of these individual's achieved notability in the United States as U.S. citizens and furthermore, Pramila Jayapal's country of birth does not even permit dual citizenship, meaning she does not hold that nationality any longer. If you have any questions, I direct you to Wikipedia's manual for biographies. I am just drawing your attention to this. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Apoorva Iyer! I attempted to locate MOS:Ethnicity but did not find the link? I am intereseted to read the guidance and rules that exist.

I agree with you that both of these representives of Congress are notable U.S. citizens.

Interestingly, just as Pramila Jayapal is not allowed to have dual citizenship, I am also not allowed to have dual citizenship with Nederland, which is my place of birth, neither are my parents, both 92 years of age, born in Nederland, who also are not allowed to have dual citizenship between Nederland and U.S.A. I became a naturalized immigrant USA citizen at 10 years of age in 1967, and so did my parents, at the same time, who were 39 years of age, when they became naturalized immigrant citizens of the USA.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the wikipedia manual for biographies. I look forward to looking at the manual, as I like reading biographies and writing biographies of earlier naturalists and natural historians that have written about nature, whether flora or fauna, wildflowers and wildlife, geology, rocks, landscapes.

Did you notice that I used the double brackets to link 'politician' to existing wikipedia sites, and similarliy for both 'Taiwanese American' and 'Indian American' that links to existing wikipedia sites, all of which explain the use of these terms. Both of them are proud to be naturalized immigrant citizens.

Again, thank you so very much for your talking to me via wikipedia. Much appreciated. Be well. Take good care. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Apoorva Iyer! I noticed that Wikipedia tells me that you do not have a User Page, at least not of this name. I have a user wikipedia autobiography that I have written that may be of interest to you. I would like to know about you as well, as we both are wikipedia editors. Have you considered making your own user page, or do you have one with another name? Peace, Roy.Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon Apoorva Iyer! I am not requesting assistance to find MOS at this time, as I searched further and discovered this acronym indicates Manual of Style, with which I am familiar, but I simply did not recgonize the acronym. I wish to thank you for noting that I refer to the MOS. The ethnicity section is pertinent as noted, with guidance for the opening paragraph that used the term "generally" which is intertretable as suggestive and not a requirement. The guidance introduces the term "notable" as well, and can be interpretated to indicate that being the first congressman or congresswoman of a particular geographic region, who is an immigrant naturalized citizen, further indicating progress being made with any citizen being able to successfully seek elected office, then acknowledging ethnicity in a neutral and objective way is logical and correct for democracy to represent all of us. Peace, Roy.Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m glad you located MOS:Ethnicity. While it does state that the rule is general, it also specifies that the nationality to be mentioned is the one under which the individual attains notability, and normally we don’t include place of birth, ethnicity, or prior nationalities in the lead. Just as former president Barrack Obama, although known for being black, is not described as a “Black american politician and attorney”, but rather simply American, with the qualifiers described later in the lead, it would be similar for these individuals who are not notable primarily for their countries of birth, but rather foremost for their identities as American politicians and only secondarily for their ethnicities/heritage/place of birth. Thanks so much for your response earlier, you are very courteous and I’m sure are a great contributor to Wikipedia. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert JVDH: This is Natasha and thanks for the earlier "thanks." I see your recent edit adding better location data for the Totem Pole - great! Got a problem, though, with your new info on the date and donor - could you please include the citation/reference for such? Otherwise it's an unsupported claim hanging there and I'd really like to see your new info kept. Best, TashaB 20:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)

Hi Natasha: You are welcome. And thank you for the compliment for better location data. I like that wikipedia has the method to thank editors within the "View history" section. I also now thanked you for moving the tree information to the section on trees. Yes, I agree, there is a problem with needing to give citation/reference for the totem pole. I visited Palisades Park yesterday (August 25, 2020 Tuesday at 5pm) and found the totem pole still there, known since my childhood. The totem pole has a plaque at the base that states it is donated in 1926 by Walter Todd. I made a few photos of the totem pole and the plaque. What do you think about placing a photo of the totem pole for this wikipedia site. I also documented some trees as present with my camera. I am not suggesting the photos of totem pole as a substitute for a reference/citation. I did a google search using the words 'palisades park totem pole santa monica' which found some information about the totem pole. I had considered citing them, but proocastinated doing so, when I added the totem pole narrative. Also, I am not too familiar with adding citation/references, so I steer away from using the references/citation, but I need to do so. You are welcome to add reference/citation for the totem pole if desired. Another earlier editor of this wikipedia site, acknowledged me for adding information on trees, which moved me to do more editing on this wikipedia site/page of Palisades Park. Peace, 'Roy' RJvdHRobert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Robert - that's for the above, and I think you're a great "patron" of this Palisades Park article. Who knew it was such an arborist's paradise?! How lucky that you lived (or live) nearby. P.S. Have had to change my username, but am still Natasha - Cheers! TashaB (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Stone pine isn't the best title, start a WP:RM discussion. But probably you don't want to propose the over-capitalized Italian Stone Pine as you had moved it to, since we don't normally capitalize common names of flora and fauna. Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dick Lyon, for the advice. I agree, I do not wish to over-capitalize, as this is not acceptable, even though my preference is to do so. So I do wish to make that change to Italian stone pine, with only Italian capitalized. I also have a prefernce to not use the term, "common name" and instead agree with bird committees that use the term, "English name" and use caps for first letter of bird names. I just looked at WP:RM as suggested, and got confused in the jargon, and not sure how to actually begin the discussion at WP:RM. Would you please guide me there.

Here is my justication/reason that I put in the reaon box, earlier and is basically still my exact argument.

"I moved page Stone pine to Italian Stone Pine (In order to avoid confusion with at least one other Stone Pine that is known as the Swiss Stone Pine, showing why a geographical name 'Italian' is appropriate. In addition, books in English in USA and England use the name of Italian Stone Pine. Even the iIntroductory section states that Italian Stone Pine is the commonly known English name for this tree.Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:RM#Requesting a single page move there's a template you can copy into the talk page of the article, put in the new name you want, and the reason. I'll oppose it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stone pine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evergreen tree.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert,

Thanks for your interest in E. deglupta. It is an interesting species indeed - the only Eucalyptus species out of more than 700 that does not occur naturally in Australia. Elmer was an American, working in the Philippines when he described Eugenia binacag (the epithet a local name for the tree) - a plant that any Australian would have called "gum tree", meaning Eucalyptus. He published the name in the Leaflets of Philippine Botany in 1914.^[1] The following year, he apparently realised his mistake and changed the name to Eucalyptus binacag.^[2] However, the species had already been named Eucalyptus deglupta by Blume in 1850, or at least that's the opinion of other authorities including the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families.

If you think the WCSP and Plants of the World Online are wrong, you can contact Rafaël Govaerts and advise him of the mistake in listing Eugenia binacag Elmer and Eucalyptus binacag (Elmer) Elmer as synonyms of Eucalyptus deglupta. In the meantime, I would appreciate having them listed in the Wikipedia article. Gderrin (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with your more recent edits to the same article-

• ("Deleted some botanical terminology as superfluous as the botanical holotype was Eucalyptus multiflora Rich, W.P. 1854. Furthermore, no period is need after 'Rich' as this is not an abbreviation of the name of the botanist".) Eucalyptus multiflora Rich W.P. 1854 is a plant specimen, not a species. Eucalyptus multiflora Rich. ex A.Gray nom. illeg. is a taxonomic synonym, and a name by Asa Gray from an unpublished description by Louis Claude Richard (abbreviated Rich.), but was an illegitimate name because it had already been given to a different species by Poiret.
• ("Deleted redundancy of botanical author name given twice since same person") it is quite common for a taxonomist to publish a name, then later change the name. I found three examples in a single genus where the eminent German/Australian botanist Ferdinand von Mueller described a species of Pholidia, then changed the genus name to Eremophila. (E. crassifolia, E. divaricata and E. gibbifolia). This page lists appropriate citations for lists of synonyms. The rules governing author citations of plant names are prescribed in the "The Code", especially articles 46 and 49.1. Gderrin (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited E. Yale Dawson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, thank you for your edits to Augusta Foote Arnold. I note you have removed some red links, these should be retained as when an article is created they automatically change to blue links. I see you have researched Richard Knapp Allen, maybe you should write an article about him. Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quetzal, you are very welcome, and I would like to say thank you again for creating the articel about Augusta Foote Arnold. I will return the red links if you have not already done so. Great teaching by you to me, so I thank you for sharing the depth and breadth of the red links and blue links, including referring to them as "links" as I had been calling them "double brackets" and so I ams still learning about being an editor. Regarding Richard Knapp Allen, I have indeed researched him quite a bit, even with the hope of editing and bringing back into print his book, Common Intertidal Invertebrates of Southern California. I also would like to edit and bring back into print as a second edition, the book by Augusta. And yes, I would like to write an article about him, not unlike your article about Augusta. I have never done an article as yet, but I am tempted to do, and your suggestion to do, pushes me to jump in again and try, and I would need help, as I am afraid of the time and effort needed, and I was sad at being denied, as I attempted feebly to do one for another person/topic (Beaudette Foundation linked to E. Yale Dawson. I only have about 900 editts, and thinking that I may get to 1000 edits soon. I am also reluctant and procrastinating at doing an article and about citations as overwhelming. I think that I am more interested in doing an article about Blanche Trask, and I would suggest that article to you, as she was a very remarkable naturalist and person, and links nature to poetry, and transcends nature and culture, and endured a lot as a woman. Her story, her biography, her life, is very fascianting to me. So is Richard Knapp Allen, as I have even met and know some of his 6 graduate students. Three women studie for their master degree with him in the 1970s. And I would like to see an article about Edith Abigail Purer, as an important scientific ecologist, also an artist, as much as I would like to do for Blanceh Trask and Richard Knapp Allen. My apology for writing so much to you, but my interest, passion, curioisty got the best of me. Thanks, yet again, for writing to me, to educate me on "links" and for doing an article on Augusta Foote Arnold. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, If you want to cooperate on any article I am more than happy to. I would help you with referencing and formatting. Not spelling though, I am Scottish so Americanised spellings don’t come naturally to me! Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quetzal. I am interested to cooperate creating articles on the people and topics that I listed. Since Richard Knapp Allen has a 'red link' in the article of Augusta Foote Arnold that you created, do you think it proper to be the first one on which to cooperate? And have you possibly already started working on creation of a Richard Knapp Allen site, since it has a red link? Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, no I haven’t started anything about Richard Knapp Allen. However, I have googled him and found very little information which could be used. I will, however, give it a bash. As the presenter of University Challenge here in the UK would say, “I’ll give you a starter for ten”. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzal, ok. Would you prefer to do an article on one or two women, with which I can contribute knowledge, namely Edithe Abigail Purer or Blance Trask (type Catalina into google alongside here name), who I mentioned, and whom I can assist as to I have some knowledge of her biography, or 'life and times' as I like to say? Regarding RK Allen, there are a few small biographical notes about him, with one by another mayfly entomologist, whose name escapes me at the moment, but he was from University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), with a photo of RK Allen with a sailboat, as he was also a sailor with boat in a California yacht harbor at Dana Point or Oceanside. I am fascinated and delighted to learn some UK/Scottish word "BASH" in your note. I also checked the blue link of University Challenge (note that I used the phrase blue link learned from you), which is so interesting for colleges in UK. In High School at 16-17 years of age, I was member of Knowledge Bowl, competing with other high schools, with my history teacher recruiting me for the team. Fun. Long time ago, 30+ years in high school. By the way, I did a web site/page on RK Allen, but I belive it was just suspeneded temporarily, as I am delayed in making an annual payment of ~$150.00 to keep my website up, which is www.naturespeace.org. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the article on Dick Allen using the obituary you are referring to, I found it on the Biodiversity Heritage Library. If you can expand it I will assist and hopefully you will be able to use your knowledge. I have a new Border terrier puppy so my Wikipedia editing is more intermittent than usual. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, I will take a look via the blue link you provided. Congrats on your new puppy! No worries on intermittet time to work on article. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is good but it needs to be sourced, you need to cite the references where you found that information. An online source would be preferable but if you have a printed source then that should be cited. Use cite book or cite journal for printed sources, if you are citing a book then the page numbers should be included. Quetzal1964 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Agreed. I had considered that the citation at the end of my edit would suffice, and yet I do see what you advise and will follow up with printed source. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert Jan van de Hoek. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Robert jan van de Hoek".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, Thank you for eliminating this draft. I do not recall having attempted to create this draft, but assuming I did so, I was a new editor, and I did not know that I was attempting to make a new article, so I think I was doing User Page?

It is certainly inappropriate to make an article about oneself, ethically and morally wrong to do so, and so I am glad you have deleted the draft. I have not even heard of anyone making an autobiography article.

Thanks again, Liz.

Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giovanni Antonio Scopoli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emerita.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I pressed "publish" I thought to myself: sjeez, calm down. The entitle/title thing is a pet peeve! Cheers from your old home country, Leo Breman (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leo, Are you in Nederland, writing from there? If so, where in Nederland, presumably Amsterdam, but not certain? Interesting to see you give "Cheers" from "your old home country" as I would not, myself, use the word "old" in reference to my home country of Nederland. Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Roy, no, I am in Leiden. I didn't read through everything on your user page, but saw something about moving to the US at a young age, hence "old". Leo Breman (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Roy, I see your new edit to Philip A. Munz, you really need to add a reference. I'm not sure you are correct here. In general, standard floras follow a particular order: gymnosperms, caryophyllales, etc., ending with monocots and orchids. I think that this is what Hickman was talking about. The assertion that Munz was first in this really needs a citation, it's just not true, I can easily find a older book in my library which uses an alphabetical order. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an 'evolutionary order' in plant families, this is just wrong. I will have to revert you there. Leo Breman (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The beautiful city of Leiden. Nice to know. Okay to say "old" when from you, in Nederland.

Regarding Munz, your mentioning of gymnosperms which occurred early in geological time, as closer to the beginning of appearance of vascular plants, although ferns are even earlier. and then dicots come upon the landscape after gymnosperms and ferns, and that is an evolutionary ordering, not a "particular order" but a focused biological science ordering, as known in his era. Instead of evolutionary, a geological ordering could be used related to plant fossils also telling us the evolutionary order.

Botanists that know plant evolution from their training, can find families easily, and there is always an index for those that like wildflowers but do not know evolution. An evolutionary order is when families first appear on Earth from natural selection.

For example, Asteraceae and Poaceae radiate late in Geology, while the Magnoliaceae family as an example evolved at leasat 30 million years prior to the Asteraceae.

Regarding Munz, the current statement prior to my change also did not have reference or citation, so perhaps the whole paragraph section needs to be removed.

I like the Munz manuals, also known as a Flora(s) and not sure why he switched away from manual as had it right in 1935 when MUnz named his first book as a manual. I had Systematic Botany back in 1978 now about 42 years ago. Great class on learning a lot of families and species as well as taxonomy and evolution right alongside systematics.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also like floristic treatments that use alphabetical ordering, as I have no bias, and can use the particular FLORA, whether the ordering evolutionary or alphabetical, but it remains sad that the newer generation of botanists and students of botany are losing the ability to understand evolution in plants over geologic time. The focus has become more about ecology, which is fine as discipline, as I also consider myself a plant ecologist.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure evolution is the reason this order exists - I thought the order was set in 18th century already, before Darwin came up with the concept of 'evolution'! In ornithology there is a similar long-standing order: loons, grebes, gulls, waders, galliforms and ending with passerines ... it's just something old and stuffy that botanists do out of respect for past works, I thought. I think it stems from the De Jussieu system, only the monocots ended up at the end in later orders. Maybe you are correct, I'm not sure, but either way, you really need to add a reference/citation if you make that claim. Hickman, in his review of Munz, is saying Munz used a strange, non-standard form in his old books -that's it; there is nothing about evolution in his quote. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leo, I learned the Bessey system in university systematic botany. There is a blue link for Bessey System which I will add to Munz as reference for the evolutionary system. Bessey was from US at University Nebrasksa, and he based his system on British botanists such as Hooker, but linked to Darwin thinking. Bessey came several decades after Darwin and Hooker. Asa Gray, famous US botanist used a Bessey-like system based on evolution, and author of Gray Manuals of North American floras. Hickman in Jepson Manual used alphabetical ordering for ease of use by non-botanists with doubts to do so. The original Jepson Manual of 1925 and his 1930s Flora of California used Bessey system. At least Hickman in new Jepson Manual and the second edition included phylogeny evolution of plants on inside cover, so he knew that for botanists he had to put the evolutionary classification of plants, which is changing with DNA genetic system.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, this is not cool. You cannot just write all this stuff without providing sources. We have no idea if that is what Hickman meant. All I have to go on, is Hickman's quote that was originally in the article. It appears to me that you are just making things up. Maybe that is not true, but... you MUST provide sourcing. Either way, it is rather off-topic pertaining to Munz' career. I hate to do this, but I feel I must revert you until you can provide a citation for your sourcing. I see above that people have alerted you of this before. This is the quote:

"Munz used a phylogenetic system which so far as I know has never been explained in print except for a statement on the inside of the front portion of the dust jacket, 'It abandons the conventional family order and attempts to follow that suggested by recent contributions from morphology and phylogeny.' Floras are not a place to introduce new phylogenetic systems. In Munz' 1974 A Flora of Southern California he saw the light and arranged the families alphabetically within major groups."

I tried to make it more understandable, but you have completely perverted what Hickman was saying, into something completely incorrect. Please stop this, and find some references! Leo Breman (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leo, My intention was not to make you angry, so I apologize. I simply wished to include discussion of evolutionary classification and inclued a well written wikipedia artice, Bessey system, with a blue link to satisfy a referene/citation. I will not add any more edits on this section of Hickman and plant family order, so as not to anger you.

I do think the entire paragraph could be removed as there is no citation/reference and is really a sidebar discussion focused on the opinion of James Hickman in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter, in which we do not know if the word "complained" is a direct quote of Hickman, with a distinct possibility that the newsletter editor inserted his/her own opinion, possibly not even paraphrasing Hickman.

There is possibly no way to see this Santa Clara CNPS newsletter, due to the generally ephemeral status of the newsletters of only a few pages in length, and sometimes irregularly printed with a limited intended audience.

Please see and note that I made approximately 7 edits to the Philip A. Munz article, which a positively constructive and which I hope you think are fine.

Lastly, I am concerned that discussion of evolution of plant families is complex and the 'Bessey system' may be to difficult to understand for many wikpedia users.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, I am not angry, I'm just an emotional person. I reverted you because the problem is that you are simply making things up here, putting words in Hickman's mouth which he isn't saying. Hickman, in his review, complains (my word!) that Munz did not use a logical order, in his eyes -Hickman says absolutely nothing about the Bessey system. I used the word "complain" because of this quote: "Floras are not a place to introduce new phylogenetic systems." To me, Hickman is complaining about Munz' work here. Personally I disagree with Hickman, many botanists have done this (Linnaeus, Bauhin, Tournefort, de Jussieu, Ray, Salisbury). Yes, let's just get rid of the paragraph entirely, as Hickman's opinion regarding a book here is not that important compared to the totality of Munz' life. In the meantime I found an actual biography of Munz' life at Jstor. We can add that as a reference. I will check your edits now...

Okay, I am good with everything except two things: 1.) "4" WP:MOS stipulates we write "four", 2.) the removal of his main flora work, the standard way biographies of botanists are written here on Wikipedia is to include all of their main works at the end, using the section header 'List of selected publications', with the books in small type... like this tiny article on this famous Soviet botanist Vladimir Leontyevich Komarov, there should also be a line above his standard author abbreviation, just like Komarov... You'll notice most of these botanist articles don't follow the standard ... the plant group made this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Botanist template, but even it is missing stuff. So I will make these changes now. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sierra Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Dorsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert Jan van de Hoek. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Beaudette Foundation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to improve the page for Jon Allan Christensen. However, it seems that most of your edits have been to remove titles and roles, and generally de-emphasize his work. In many cases, your removals were valid because the statements were backed up by links that were now dead or where the web pages had been changed (although in all cases I was able to track down supporting sources and archived links with a bit of digging).

• You removed the link to his official UCLA page. Sure, the link was dead, but I found it easy to locate the correct new link: https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/person/jon-christensen/
• You changed his title from adjunct professor to "staff", based on the assumption that you can't be a professor without a PhD? That's an incorrect assumption. His official title on the official UCLA is Adjunct Assistant Professor, so I changed it back.
• You removed his role as previous Executive Director of the Bill Lane Center. Again, the source page had changed, but I found the original page on the Internet Archive that confirms this previous title. http://web.archive.org/web/20160323103917/https://west.stanford.edu/people/christensen
• I also added a source for your new sentence about Christensen's LA Times op-ed about the Ballona Wetlands, since there were no citations there.
• Finally, I reworded that sentence to remove the loaded language "He is a currently active polemic as shown by...". First of all, calling a writer a "polemic" is awkward language, it seems that "polemicist" would be clearer, but in any case that language is unnecessary and carries a negative bias.

Again, thanks for your work editing this page and removing unsourced material, but please take care not to stray into impartial tone. I left most of your edits in place, even though they seemed to be systematically trying to diminish Christensen's notability (forgive me if I'm getting the wrong impression). But I'll defer to other editors if they have any other concerns with the language. Almccon (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Almccon! Thank you for writing to me. You're welcome, I like being an editor for Wikipedia and always wish to make articles accurate. I see that you have made several edits as well, and I wsh to thank you for your efforts as well. I thanked you approximately 5 times for your 5 edits, which you can see in the editing history section, and I think you are made aware of my thanking you via Wikipedia announement to you?

Keep on editing. I have made more than 1,000 edits for which I have been thanked. I also wish to thank you for creating the Jon Allan Christensen article approximately 5 years ago, circa 2015, from doing a quick inspection of the article history.

I see that you are colleagues at Stamen Design from reading your user page and links, and that possibly you are friends?

Peace, Roy...Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I see that you have edited the coastal commission wikipage in the past. Recently there has been an aggressive editor posting very bias criticisms of the agency. If you have a moment to go take a look and present a more neutral point of view I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierpointer (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]