Hi Sidelight12, I tried to resolve the dispute at Talk:Renewable energy#Synthetic fuel with a request at WP:3O, but another editor removed that request because it appeared to him that you had weighed in on the issue. I really don't think it's necessary to escalate this to an RFC or the dispute resolution noticeboard. Could you please make your opinion on the dispute clear at the article talk page? Thanks for any help you can provide. JS Uralia (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary for this edit began with the words "commented out."

As I understand it, to "comment out" a link normally means to place it inside the comment so that it is no longer publicly visisble. Is that what you intended to do?

I am fine just removing the link. (Had I thought a little harder, I might have started a discussion on that possibility on the article's talk page.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I wanted it to be known that it was a link to the disambiguation page. Since all or most of those subjects applied to biofield, it would be neater to link directly to the disambiguation page than retype each entry for every article it applied to. Thanks. Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sidelight12,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ideas and Discoveries (magazine) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Wer900 • talk 06:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone this CSD nomination. Please see the article's talk page for more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may want to comment at Talk:Plantain#The topic of this article (again). There have been a number of recent edits aimed at making the article about plantains in the narrow sense of a specific group of cultivars, rather than the broad sense which you favoured when this was last discussed on the talk page. I've undone these edits, but your input will be useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've created the disambiguation page and I've created at least a stub at "true plantain" let's hope that other editors will grasp the difference! I think it's a much better structure. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope the adjustments made work out better. The article was already about the cooking plantain, and it would have been many times the work to continually rewrite, then recreate it. It was more efficient to move the article, and start a new one. Now the titles and topics are distinct. At least now there won't be future confusion. Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there shouldn't be any future confusion; we'll see whether there is. Now, at least, editors adding stuff about "true plantains" to the "cooking plantains" article can be directed to the right place. I'm sure that this split plus the disambiguation article was the right move; thanks for forcing the issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are familiar with our policy on image galleries you may know they are discouraged, especially untitled random collections. My edit removed the image width so the default display size could be used and removed the gallery, leaving most images in a standard layout. Since there was the too many for the amount of text I queued one image. I also added the refimprove tag as that is what it needs. Please do not revert my edits which follow our policy and call it vandalism. Your undoing was very clumsy. - Shiftchange (talk)

The edits before yours were vandalism. I had to undo that. I'll try to fix it. Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the removal of the see also section was un-explained, however I think someone believed they should be removed because they were too distantly related, the list was too long or they were already linked above. Maybe you could cull the list if needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "transport" section was also removed in the edit before that one. I fixed the removal, and put your edits back in. Sorry about that, I got impatient with the section blankings. Reverting was the easiest way to fix the section blankings. Galleries are quite common and can be useful, but it doesn't matter to me, if a gallery is used or not. The gallery is replaced and its fixed now. I only noticed the difference in content with the removed tag. Its a good idea to look out for section blankings that are unexplained (usually over 1,000 bytes is a giveaway) or other vandalism, not always labeled with ip address. Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know, I've nominated File:Saturn north polar vortex false color.jpg, that you uploaded, as a Valued Image at Commons. it's quite dramatic. —hike395 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Galveston, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pelican Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than ever convinced that the group of editors who work on WP:MEDRS, although well-intentioned, have reached a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and are really not listening to other editors. Ok, I shouldn't have mentioned legal issues (although in some countries disclaimers of responsibility in terms of use have no legal force), but no-one attempted to argue against my point that efficacy and toxicity are not the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its still about 50/50, and it takes more than that to gain consensus. If that happens, I won't like it, but I will have to accept it. If that happens, that will leave room for another Wiki to overshadow Wikipedia on the topic of medicine to include the proposed data left out of Wikipedia. I mentioned an alternative proposal on that page, that deals with the issue of third-party of a company affiliated with a substance (doesn't exclude primary), and making peer reviewed a must. Its still an ethical matter, since people rely on Wikipedia so mentioning legal make sense. Many people who use Wikipedia don't always know its rules, or what is behind the scenes, for now this area is pretty acceptable. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there will always be a near 50/50 split on this issue whether they are aware of these guidelines or not, because editors have different core beliefs. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I've come to think that there's another, Wikipedia-specific issue. Groups of editors that spend a lot of their time working on sections of the MOS lose sight of what "content editors" (I nearly wrote "real editors"!!) actually do and come to believe that changing guidelines is the answer to problems with articles, when actually the answer is to deal with articles one by one. Anyway, I think I've been sidetracked too; I'd rather think about how to improve the set of "banana" articles, which are still rather confusingly structured in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from the discussion, my conclusion is they want an automatic cure-all to get the right answer on toxicology. I don't understand the viewpoint beyond that. I hope there is a resolution to the problem that everyone or most can agree on. Some topics do not have many secondary sources, when there is ongoing research on it. Luckily this is not the issue for other subjects.

For notability, do you think every species or molecule that has enough to be written about should get an article whether it meets notability guidelines or not?

Molecules I don't know about; I suspect not. But for plants, we have agreed that every species is intrinsically notable; see Wikipedia:Plants#Scope and goals. Of course there may not be enough information about many species to make anything more than a stub possible. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be much helpful on the classification on musa beyond organizing and resolving what is already there. My encyclopedia does not have much information on it. Where does information come from, there must be well written books out of major retailers reach, and encyclopedias that specialize that must have their reputation in reliability. Interestingly, many species are mentioned in Pub Med Central, (some info is on the background of plants) but there is not always anything of value to bring to Wikipedia. The template was improved to include Callimusa, that template may be of a lot of help in helping people see the organization. I was just trying to understand the subject that wasn't the way I thought it was, and try to improve that understanding for others. Within cultivated groups, the subject is really easy if you go by group and sub-group. ie cavendish sub-group, true plantain sub-group. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your re-organized template is helpful. I wonder about the phrase "common cultivated banana cultivars". Since "cultivar" = "cultivated variey", this really means "common cultivated banana cultivated varieties". Would "common banana cultivars" be better? Or "common cultivated banana varieties"? (Although I know that botanists don't like this use of "variety" because of its technical meaning equivalent to "varietas".) On the other hand, redundancy isn't necessarily harmful for lay readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the conservation info for Fe'i bananas was a nice find! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you should change the template, to be correct, but leave the structure alone. Physorg.com, esciencenews.com, medicalxpress.com, and sciencedaily.com are goldmines for sources. The original page that published it has to be navigated from, if it exists. If a university, newspaper, or other major outlet published it in the last few years, its there. Its harder to find sources that were made further back in time. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also the comments I made here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dwarf Cavendish banana may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• <ref>citation|url=http://www.agroforestry.net/tti/Banana-plantain-overview.pdf|title=Musa species}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misconstrue my recent "thank". It's meant to indicate complete agreement with your sentitment and vicarious enjoyment of your calling things by their name. But it's not meant as encouragement to continue in that vein. It's not worth the tsuris and one always loses a hissing match with a snake. Most of the time, the only worthwhile response is no response. Just take a deep breath, rise to the amply spewn bait on extremely rare occasions, and try to acquire some serenity that, as I once wrote of another once-influential-but-now-banned bully, eventually, time wounds all heels.

It's much easier said than done and you'll most likely see me violate my own advice before too long. I find the behavior you've complained of infuriating, as well. David in DC (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was being funny. You don't have to worry about it. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who writes, as User:SilkTork did, "... Plantago and Rhino Horn banana which are types of plantain" shows that they simply don't understand the issues and should never have moved the article. If I had the ability, I would undo the moves, but only admins can do this (which is what I meant by an abuse of privilege).

I have no idea how to get out of this mess; do you have any suggestions? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The admin should have read the talkpage, and tried to understand it before making the move. I honestly didn't understand it at first, but I tried to figure it out from the various perspectives, and see how it could not conflict with the different (rightful) views. It could move to cooking plantain, which doesn't take an admin to do, but it might be moved back. I was tempted to move it there for a while, before it was moved how it was. For someone to make the move, they should have responded on the talk-page by now considering the user has made activity since then. I might move it, with the consideration if it would cause an upset. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 14:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see how it could not conflict with the different (rightful) views – exactly. If there were a neat, tidy, easy solution, the editors who have been discussing this (several more in the past who seem to have gone away) would have found it. What we had could best be described as "least worst" and we were working to see if there was something better. "Cooking plantain" is certainly better than just "plantain" because it emphasizes that:

• "Plantain" has multiple meanings, so it needs to be qualified to say which one is meant; bare "plantain" is simply too ambiguous.
• Only material about cooking/culinary uses should be added to this article, not information about cultivars, botany, etc. which belongs elsewhere.

So if you propose this move on the talk page, I will strongly support you. Maybe we should have a formal WP:RM, but there usually seems to be a backlog and long delay with these. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it there, like I wanted to do for over a month. Hopefully no one gets upset over the move. So if anyone doesn't like it, try to explain it to them how this is better instead of conflicting. I moved it because I'm convinced that this is reasonable from all points of view, and the content conflicts disappeared after a similar set up. My intent isn't to start a coalition of two editors pushing their way, its more of this suits different cultural, scientific and culinary views. Its moving it back to a functional title that was similar. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 11:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are any problems and I don't notice, let me know. I'm sure this is better than before your move. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your comment about the herbalism article and was wondering if it could be fixed by moving most of the "Modern Herbal Medicine" section to the article titled "Drug Discovery". There is a section in that article the briefly mentions the use of natural products and specifically plant-derived compounds as leads for further synthetic development into drugs. The herbalism lead could be edited to de-emphasize this section which really does not have much to do with traditional herbal medicine. Desoto10 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Herbalism could be renamed to Medicinal plants. There should be links between "Drug discovery" and "Herbalism." Some information can be duplicated or added to "drug discovery." I will look into adding to the drug discovery article. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]