User talk:Masebrock

885: 2480:

imaginary article would assess the prevalence of torture in 1991-2013; 2014-2021; and 2022-current periods. It would then analyze the roots of the issues; discuss how the Ukrainian state dealt with it; assess the role of outside intervention/invasion; and so on. Such source has not been yet written that I know of, making it very difficult for the wiki editors to agree on how much weight individual events and entities should be given. Hence the endless disputes, edit wars, and so on. I hope this helps clarify where I'm coming from. --

1487:

mixed mesophytic forests", implying it should be about the ecological community as it is widely understood, but it is instead about the "Appalachian mixed mesophytic forests as defined by the WWF", which is a minority viewpoint that is different from the majority viewpoint in significant ways. The majority of researchers in scientific publications use either the EPA ecoregions or the physiographic provinces, which cover the same approximate geographic boundaries. The WWF ecoregions are essentially unheard of.

968: 2194: 104: 51:, Wikimedia's free image repository. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Commons, but: seeing that you release your pictures into the public domain, it's best to upload your images to the Commons, where they can be used on Knowledge, and all other Wikimedia projects. Saves a lot of work for other editors, too, since free images hosted on Knowledge are eventually tagged and moved to the Commons over time. If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers, 1862: 1810: 2716: 2265: 2594: 2753: 2294: 2073: 1918: 1726: 1600: 761: 2587: 1698:). However, you can see from the photo that these leaves are still basally disposed, ruling out S. ulmifolia, S. gigantea, or S. rugosa as possibilities. The secund, recurved branches if of the inflorescence rule out S. caesia, S, curtisii, S. erecta. And although the photo is grainy, the steam leaves are indeed serrate, to the same degree as the stem leaves in the line drawing. 1879:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1827:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1486:

Hi Hike395, thanks for responding to my comment. I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the WWF ecoregions are non-notable in the strict sense. Its more that I think they represent a minority viewpoint, while purporting to represent the scientific consensus. This article is titled "Appalachian

2479:

for samples of my contributions. I rarely edit articles on current, up-to-the-minute events. Hence my expectation for an "overview" would be an article published in a scholarly journal with a hypothetical title of "Torture in Ukraine: From the 1991 independence to the 2022 Russian invasion". Such an

2552:

conditions of a state, and not benefit from retrospective scholarly assessment. Due to the inherent recentness of a "Human Rights" page, and the inherent secretiveness and geopolitical sensitivity of the topic of torture, we cannot expect any part of it to be comparable to the depth and sourcing as

2171:

with the goal of taking it to GA. It's a level-4 vital article and its current state is extremely poor. The genus has been my on and off pet project for the past five or so years, and I've brought one article to GA and have another on the way, but I haven't tackled anything this big yet. I was just

272:

I haven't added any range maps to articles, only to the relevant Commons categories, but I thought the national range maps might be useful for article taxoboxes. Because the image in the taxobox is displayed at small size, its purpose would be just to give the reader an at-a-glance overview of what

2471:

I understand. Since this covers the war in Donbas (largely 2014 - 2016), then there should also be some material about the current invasion, i.e. the War crimes in 2022 & the torture chambers. I'm afraid that there would be debates & potential edit warring since my proposal for links only.

1670:

Hi - I think your photos labeled Solidago arguta are excellent. But I'm concerned that they are misidentified. I'm not sure which Solidago they are, but shouldn't S. arguta have larger, wider basal leaves with deeper and more obvious serrations? I'm sorry if I've repeated this question in too many

257:

that are much more useful but unfortunately copyrighted. I don't know what to do in the meantime until a free source is available, but the I think the USDA maps are misleading due to the large blocks of color where a plant is not actually found. At the last conference I went to, everyone was using

188:

I noticed that you have a gallery of your work displayed on your user page. On those occasions when a file has to be renamed on being transferred to Commons (usually due to a filename conflict), with your permission I'll change the filename on your user page so your gallery stays intact. I'll also

290:

Incidentally, the USDA actually does publish county-by-county maps at the Plants Database website. Clicking on a state where the species is present opens up a state-level county-by-county map, and clicking on the state-level map opens up a higher resolution map in which the counties are labeled.

184:

Hi, Masebrock. Thanks for all the botanical images: a great many of them are the sole examples of a given species on any Wikimedia project. For that reason, I've begin transferring them to Wikimedia Commons so they're available to every Wikimedia project and for any other use as well. I've also

1238:

Hi, its not a bother at all. I enjoy answering questions, and I doubt there are too many other botanists hanging around Knowledge. When a name is "misapplied", that means that someone once published a treatment of that taxa and assigned it to an identity that did not match the type specimen. For

1330:

usually explains its reasons for regarding a name as a synonym under the "Not accepted by" tab. It seems reasonable to me for them to follow the USDA Plants database, but then I'm neither American nor a professional botanist. If you don't think the WCSP is right, I've found the Kew team very

931: 1612:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

849:, which is the species more typically seen in that area. Feel free to send any photos my way that need identification. I may not be able to do some of the more challenging ones over the computer screen, but many species are identifiable with just photos. 2543:

A few thoughts: The lack of thorough, deep-explanatory retrospective sources is an inherent problem for any relatively recent event, and doubly so for a program that operates under the shroud of government secrecy. If the fog of war is bad, the fog of

1456:

that are independent of the subject. In this cases, I would say that we would need non-WWF sources to mention these ecoregions. It looks like the Nature Conservancy has adopted the WWF ecoregions into their own conservation analysis (see, e.g., their

1490:

Perhaps its inevitable that there will be a lot of alternative systems floating around with duplicated content. I was hoping that we could merge these systems to avoid redundancy. However, I got some push-back for attempting to do that with the

1436:

about the non-notability of WWF ecoregions. In the early days of Knowledge, there were a devoted set of editors who thought that the WWF ecoregion system was important enough to write these kind of articles. For years, I have worried about our

427:. APG certainly isn't the final word, and any post-2009 publications need to be taken into consideration if there are any. But as of now APG seems to be the most authoritative, up-to-date source we have, and it is the system followed in the 1131:

I have to say, mosses are not my expertise. I would just do what ITIS says, since it is reasonably up to date. There are a lot of sources that are static like USDA Plants and Flora of North America which I would not trust at all.

189:

edit the articles where the images are displayed. So far there have only been a couple of renames, largely because, as I mentioned, your images are often the sole specimens we have, which is what makes them especially valuable.

2453:. There is no reason why there shouldn't be at least be a few sentences describing the situation for the reader. I have a proposed text that is pared down, taking up less article space, and speaks more in generalities here: 735:

is the the more correct name, from the most recent publications. There's been a lot of rearranging with the Myrsinaceae/Primulaceae group. Many Knowledge pages are showing the old family names in the former Myrsinaceae.

574:

Definitely going to go with Nabalus barbatus for this one. Old Prenanthes was shown to be an unrelated grouping, really all Prenanthes except P. purpurea are Nabalus now. Thanks again for your help making my images more

418:

according to the most recent genetic data. The monocot group has been in a serious state of taxonomic flux over the past few years, resulting in a lot of uncertainty. The most recent genetic evidence is compiled by the

1346:

Hello Peter. I will gladly join the WP:PLANTS project, I did not know such a thing existed. Regarding the Trillium, I think your edit is the best move, showing that different sources have different opinions on the

2164:

species recently, and saw you created a few really nice articles and are a subject matter expert on botany. I'm reaching out to ask if you'd be interested in helping me out with expanding the genus article at

2782:. 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 2323:. 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 2100:. 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 1945:. 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 1753:. 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 1624:. 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 2172:

wondering if you'd be interested in working together with myself (and hopefully a handful of other editors) on improving this important article. Please let me know your thoughts! Very respectfully,

2034:

Sure, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm in the area. I actually tried to photograph this species at May Prairie few years ago before it was named, but the pictures didn't turn out quality-wise.

2019:, all with Commons-unacceptable licenses. It should be in bloom now and remain so for awhile. Please let me know if this would be interest to you. Thank you in advance for your consideration! — 2724: 1424: 2798: 2669: 2339: 2158:

Hello Masebrock, I don't think we've officially met on-wiki but our editing paths have crossed a few times. I've been going through and reaching out to editors who have made pages on

2116: 1961: 1769: 1640: 2242: 253:

I would be hesitant to add USDA range maps to all the species, since county-by-county maps do exist, just not in a free form yet. For example BONAP has county maps for every species

2767: 2308: 2227: 2086: 1931: 1739: 2670: 982:" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on 1273:

Now, even though in this case both names appear to be valid, the misapplied name doesn't have to necessarily be valid in every case. It could be the misapplied name is the

1251:

would quickly tell you that my application of the name doesn't match the type specimen. A misapplication is kind of like a mass misidentification done on some formal level.

2219: 1701:

I am positive of the identity of the species in this photo. S. arguta is one of the most common species of Solidago in the acidic lower slopes of the Ocoee Gorge area.

2676:

There is no Knowledge policy against including classified documents because the law is what disallows Knowledge from posting classified documents. Hope this helps!

2215: 2006: 1048:. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has that as the initial ID too. I don't know why it was changed, maybe just a mistake by the user. I will change it back. 2241:

on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the

377: 1480: 2740: 2689: 1871: 1819: 610: 2143: 1987: 1795: 1658: 2250: 1856: 1804: 1686:

Hi Doppelbrau. You are fine, this is the right place to contact me, since I probably wouldn't have noticed your comments on the Solidago arguta page.

1362: 2720: 2497: 2269: 845:

It's correctly identified and a surprising find for Wisconsin. The low number of flowers in the axils and the pale petal color separate it from

434:

Thanks again for moving and categorizing all those images by the way. I'll have plenty more photos to come once I get a break from field season.

1010: 534: 2253:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 2825: 2366: 2449:

I'm open to the idea that it's too rambling as it currently stands, but I do not think that removal of all text regarding torture satisfies

1305:

Hi, I noticed you wrote above that you doubted there were many other botanists around Knowledge. Actually there are quite a few attached to

659: 2475:

More generally, let me explain what I mean when I talk about an "overarching narrative". For background, I mostly edit on WWII topics; see

704: 347: 1391: 2374: 2063: 2001:

Hello! I have noticed your great photographs and that you are located in Tennessee. I thought I'd ask if you'd be interested in going to

1908: 1555: 1356: 47:

Hey Masebrock! I came across your plant articles - awesome work =) Just wanted to suggest that you upload your plantlife pictures to the

1903: 1851: 171: 88: 2380: 1716: 1592: 1327: 804: 568: 73: 2553:(in your example) a WWII topic. This is just part of the territory of an encyclopedic page on highly sensitive non-historical topics. 1710: 1433: 726: 157: 42: 2043: 258:

BONAP in their powerpoints and posters. I might email the creator of BONAP and ask for his thoughts on using his maps on Knowledge.

2396: 1512: 1418: 1294: 1159: 1141: 1071: 1057: 915: 899: 858: 745: 696: 682: 602: 584: 526: 512: 457: 443: 353: 318: 267: 248: 216: 1891: 1839: 1571: 2181: 1586: 1549: 229:. If you'd find these useful for the articles you've created, you can find them in the relevant category at Commons -- e.g. for 2745: 2286: 1468: 1441:

guideline for these articles, because the articles, by definition, reflect a single source that is an advocacy organization.

1696: 1693: 1690: 476: 2821: 2362: 2139: 1983: 1791: 1654: 1426: 999: 975: 628: 367: 1680: 2696: 1556: 962: 503:

Hmm...it does appear that Asimina longifolia is the more accepted name. Could you go on and change the image name? Thanks

2384: 299: 2153: 1232: 69: 1875:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1823:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1534: 1173: 775: 34: 2645: 2538: 2508: 1189: 497: 2664: 1125: 431:

page. I was using an out of date source when writing the Schoenolirion page, I'll change the family to Asparagaceae.

2562: 2522: 2489: 2466: 2444: 2422: 2708: 2634: 2817: 2548:

in a modern war is worse. And yet, any "Human rights of X country" page must necessarily concern itself with the

2358: 2246: 2135: 2058: 2028: 1979: 1787: 1650: 1518: 1172:

Hi again. Sorry to keep pestering you. Could you explain what it means that a binomial has been "misapplied"? At

839: 128: 1340: 1038: 1665: 1167: 305: 235: 1880: 1828: 1374:

Hi, Masebrock. I'm trying to find out what is the most up-to-date classification for the Kaweah monkeyflower,

2580: 1492: 1314: 623: 16: 1239:

example, if I published a treatment of oaks and said "all the White Oaks in North America are English Oaks (

139: 2791: 2432: 2332: 2109: 1954: 1762: 1633: 465: 408: 201: 864: 2803: 2402:

The way I see it we're discussing two seperate questions: 1. The proper article weight of torture in the

2344: 2281: 2121: 1966: 1774: 1645: 1084:

Hi, Masebrock. Thanks for your help with the previous ID. I'm trying to figure out the classification of

1079: 954: 815:

Hi, Masebrock. Not sure how much you can do with just a picture, but would you consider having a look at

2223: 1088:, but am finding a lot of contradictory information. All the sources I can find place it in the family 420: 884: 185:

begun creating the relevant taxon categories on Commons as well, which will make them easier to find.

2277: 751: 555: 2499:? It might be better to continue there so that others could be aware and chime in if they want... -- 1462: 118:

Thank you for the excellent pictures you've taken of plants and landscapes! They're very well done.

2428: 2002: 810: 2403: 2177: 1996: 1519: 1336: 1004: 987: 669:

as a distinct species and leave it in the Plantaginaceae. A 2012 publication resurrected it from

470:

Hi again, Masebrock. Hope field season is going well. As I was creating a Commons category for

2431:

as a cut of the "Human rights in Ukraine" article. The "torture" topic would be addressed thus:

1285:), that would be a misapplication of an invalid name. I hope that clears things up a little bit. 1177: 2454: 2011: 1671:

other places; I'm not a regular wikipedia user, so I'm not sure where to discuss these things.

167: 66: 2779: 2534: 2504: 2485: 2440: 2392: 2320: 2097: 1942: 1750: 1621: 1310: 391: 79:

Thanks SuperHamster! I'm going to attempt to upload all my images to the Commons from now on.

25:

for DYK and have included your pic of the lake at suset. I hope the pic makes the main page.

22: 2200:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

221:

Hi, again. For each of the species you've photographed I've tried to find range maps at the

2790:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2331:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2273: 2108:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2016: 1953:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1761:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1676: 1632:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1496: 1262:

are both valid species, and previous recearchers have mistakenly identified ("misapplied")

488:, I can also request a name change for the image and effect the attendant tidying. Cheers. 2695:

It is not illegal to report the contents of classified information. There was literally a

829: 826: 8: 2427:

Sorry, I should not have sprung up "section blanking" on you. Here's what I had in mind:

1500: 816: 254: 123: 2659: 2629: 2407: 2173: 2054: 2024: 1499:. So I'm content with just having duplicated content for now. My plan is to expand the 1332: 330: 291:

Sorry, I explained that poorly: what I mean is that, for example, clicking on Texas in

179: 1503:

article to cover the natural communities in a way not boxed in by the WWF definition.

2761: 2302: 2236: 2080: 1925: 1733: 1608: 1577:

It was taken July 2009. The internal camera dates for most of my older photos is off.

1476: 1387: 1300: 1228: 1155: 1121: 1067: 1034: 950: 895: 878: 835: 722: 692: 655: 598: 564: 522: 493: 453: 404: 314: 244: 197: 163: 94: 59: 54: 30: 2723:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is

640: 207:

That would be great if you renamed them, I do appreciate it. Thanks for the support!

2810: 2775: 2530: 2500: 2481: 2476: 2436: 2388: 2351: 2316: 2128: 2093: 1973: 1938: 1781: 1746: 1617: 1306: 1174:

http://bie.ala.org.au/species/http://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2890523#names

995: 921: 821: 788: 767: 293: 1190:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=75722

2728: 2677: 1899: 1847: 1689:

Solidago arguta can often lose its basal leaves by flowering time (see specimens

1672: 1567: 1530: 2214:

Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

545:

Hi there. Similar question: I'm not sure whether to create the Commons category

341: 2787: 2700: 2554: 2514: 2458: 2414: 2328: 2105: 2035: 1950: 1758: 1702: 1629: 1578: 1541: 1504: 1438: 1410: 1348: 1286: 1133: 1049: 907: 850: 796: 737: 674: 576: 504: 435: 424: 339:? I'm trying to create an accurate taxonavigation box for the Commons category 259: 208: 149: 133: 80: 2783: 2654: 2624: 2450: 2435:. I.e. the section will still be there, but with the "Further" links only. -- 2324: 2258: 2101: 2050: 2020: 1946: 1754: 1625: 1449: 983: 990:. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! 517:

It'll take some time for an admin to rename the file, but the rest is done.

1876: 1824: 1472: 1453: 1383: 1224: 1151: 1117: 1063: 1030: 946: 891: 831: 718: 688: 673:, and the USDA Plants website is really outdated when it comes to taxonomy. 651: 594: 560: 518: 489: 449: 415: 400: 310: 240: 193: 26: 2496:

Should I move my latest comment to follow yours on the article Talk page:

967: 2015:(May Prairie aster, Estes' aster). There are only a handful of images on 1445: 991: 428: 2794:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2335:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2193: 2112:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1957:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1765:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1636:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1444:

You are bringing up another point, which is that these articles are not

621:

Hi again. Looking for direction on a similar case, involving your image

484:. Could you advise me which category I should create? If it ought to be 103: 2771:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2586: 2312:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2090:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1935:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1895: 1843: 1743:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1563: 1526: 865:

http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=0000+0000+1115+1952

1458: 1277:

name for another species. If I called all white oaks in North America

2752: 2293: 2272:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

2167: 2160: 2072: 1917: 1725: 1599: 559:. Whichever you think is better, I can do the renaming, cleanup etc. 2593: 760: 162:

I would just like to second TCMemoire, your plant photos are lovely.

2618: 2603: 1322: 906:

Looks correct to me. Thanks for the barnstar! It's a labor of love.

2186: 1464:). I suspect this is enough to fulfill the notability guidelines. 480:

lists its taxonomic status as "not accepted" and as a synonym for

1467:

If you want to discuss further, you may wish to bring this up at

1452:

that we follow, that a topic has to have significant coverage in

2807:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2410:

page should be deleted (which it likely will, seeing consensus).

2348:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2206:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

2125:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1970:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1778:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1461:. There is also an atlas from Vanderbilt University (see, e.g., 1309:. We certainly need more – do please join in the discussions at 930: 335:

Hi, Masebrock. Could you help me out with the classification of

222: 2797:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

2765:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

2671:

United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine

2529:

Make sense. I have to log off now -- I'll continue tomorrow. --

2338:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2306:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

2115:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

1960:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

1768:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

1639:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

2084:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

1929:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

766:

Great job on your articles on biology! Keep up the good work!

650:

in the Scrophulariaceae family. What would you like me to do?

2381:

Talk:Torture_in_Ukraine#Proposal:_Merge/redirect,_or_Disambig

1178:

https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/instance/apni/835482

48: 1737:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

1112:. Do you know what's the most current classification of 974:

Hi Masebrock, I just wanted to let you know that I have

2778: