Archives

Archive 1

Sorry -- my edit saved while I was typing the summary. My concern is that there's no reference at all for that sentence: I don't know which citation is supposed to support it. If you believe that one of the existing citations supports it, please add a ref at the end of the sentence. pburka (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: The source for this sentence is the same source that is already at the end of the paragraph. See paragraph 8-10. Mottezen (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten that paragraph and cited each claim. What do you think? pburka (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Torreya Guardians at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mottezen - This is my first attempt at a talk, so I might not do it correctly. I am CBarlow, grateful for your leadership on the "Assisted migration of Forests in North America" page. I just checked out the "Climate Change Adaptation" page and went to the internal section: "Migration" sub "of ecosystems". There I see how problematic it is that the original wikipedia page titled "Assisted migration" was in 2013 redirected to make the lead title "Assisted colonization." I'll tell you where exactly to look in the "history" section of that page to find that, but first, please go to this page and section and read the 3 short paras and see if you find it appropriate to easily update something there:

Page: "Climate Change Adaptation" section "Migration" subsection "of ecosystems"

There you will see that the word "colonization" (and thus the conservation biology emphasis) makes this short section of the "Climate Change Adaptation" page look more controversial than it actually is today. As well, as you recall, the term "colonization" has recently been called out as "offensive", and thus a return to "migration" may be worth considering.

History of scholarly papers: The original term used in conservation biology (and then quickly extended to forestry) was "assisted migration." If you go to the "oldest" history page in the current "Assisted colonization" page you will see contributions on 15 June 2007 by someone called "cbtanager". That was my own aol email name back then before gmail came into use. I did not understand wikipedia norms back then, but I did make some initial helpful contributions. My name is in red because I did not know to register as a "user".

Notice that a new user named "Lambertiana" started adding a string of edits on 7 February 2013.

If you then proceed in the "history" to the next 50 oldest, you will see the below entry, which is apparently when "Assisted colonization" was made the main page, and thenceforth "assisted migration" redirected to that page. You will see the user name "Lambertiana" associated with that title shift. Here is how it shows up:

cur prev 16:25, 13 February 2013‎ Lambertiana talk contribs‎ m 19,398 bytes 0‎ Lambertiana moved page Assisted migration to Assisted colonization: See "Terminology" section of article. Most scientists and practitioners are now referring to this idea as "assisted colonization" or "managed relocation," but not "assisted mig...

Background on the page title shift: I recall I dropped out of trying to change anything on that wikipedia page after seeing the title shift. The conservation biologists had taken over. Do know that the user "Lambertiana" I simply assumed to be the second author of two key journal publications on this topic, 2010 and 2011. The two papers are: "Assisted Colonization Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act" by biologists Patrick D. Shirey and Gary A. Lamberti, in Conservation Letters, February 2010 3(1): 45-52. "Regulate Trade in Rare Plants" by Patrick D. Shirey and Gary A. Lamberti, Nature 27 January 2011. Lamberti was the first author's PhD advisor. Shirey and I have kept in touch ever since then, but I have never communicated with Lamberti. Do know that I considered both papers to be excellent. My only quibble is with one academic having been allowed to get a title redirect with no discussion. I think that discussion ought to happen now because it is now affecting what terminology is being used on the very important "Climate Change Adaptation" page.

Background on how I know so much: If you look at my user page you will see one book I wrote and also I recently added my freelance editing work with Columbia University Press. I had 3 previous books, too. The first 2 were edited anthologies with MIT Press. All 4 books I spent 3 years each researching and then pretty quickly writing. Not once did I write a journalistic style, quick "science writing" article for a magazine or newspaper. My nerd style is to go deep on very few topics, such that just about nobody is more knowledgeable about the breadth and history of a single narrow topic than I am. There are two webpages on my own website that I consistently go to for refreshing and verifying my own understanding on the history of the assisted migration topic, the debate, its practice, and its terminology. You may already have visited them, but if not, please take a look:

• http://www.torreyaguardians.org/assisted-migration.html • http://www.torreyaguardians.org/assistedmigrationdebate.html

I was thrilled to see the new "Assisted migration of forests in North America" wikipage because for years I had been sending people to the first url above, but it had gotten overwhelmingly long. The wikipedia page is absolutely ideal for first-step education of the scholars I generally communicate with. My hope is that it is also sufficiently colloquial (you well modelled that) to have it also fulfill the primary wiki audience: non-experts. The advantages that huge "Scholarly links" page of mine still offers are twofold: (1) an internal "Find" search is a reliable way to feel assured of seeing just about everything of that word v. a "search" on google or Google Scholar (which I adore!). (2) Any paper or news article that is really important I generally excerpted. I used bold type to help people scan quickly, too.

As to my suggestion that the "Assisted colonization" page be discussed for possible reversion to the original title, "Assisted migration", do take a look at the second url listed above, which includes a section listing and excerpting the papers on indigenous perspectives. In our new forestry A.M. page, I only cite Bonebrake et al in the indigenous section, but you will see a lot more on the section of this page that the forestry page refs as 59. Barlow, Connie. "Part 4. Decolonizing Scientific Language". Torreya Guardians. Retrieved 20 July 2021. There you will see "Possingham" as a major author. He is emeritus Australian conservation biologist and did a stint as lead scientist of The Nature Conservancy just before Katharine Hayhoe took over that job in June. Possingham is Australian; he knows me. And the lead papers pointing out the offensiveness of "colonization" are all Australian, with Possingham on all. Nobody has more credibility globally to be able to advocate against "colonization" in the terminology than he has. Unfortunately, he is animal-centric in his work, so "migration" is problematic for him. But he was unaware of the USA "Indian Relocation Act" when he opted for "managed relocation" to replace "assisted colonization." Nobody in the forestry field would tolerate "managed relocation" as the main word and truly, forestry scholars and managers are by far out in front on this new conservation, climate adaptation, tool now. Another possible group to bring into the discussion is the IUCN Redlist "Plant Translocation" people, which has an animal-centric history long before climate change. But U.K. ecologist Sarah Dalrymple, with U.K. forester Richard Winder, just started a "Plant Translocation Network", though still an e-list of scholars and managers, not a webpage. I regularly communicate with both, and note that a 2021 paper they coauthored is listed as Reference 112 in our Forestry AM page: Dalrymple, Sarah; Winder, Richard; Campbell, Elizabeth M (June 2021). "Exploring the potential for plant translocations to adapt to a warming world". Journal of Ecology. 109 (6): 2264-2270. I'll mention more in another "Talk" about the tremendous interest the forestry scholars are finding on our new page. Thus far, no complaints from anyone. Just praise and the occasional suggestion. Okay I need to try to sign my talk post now, but I may not succeed. Can't figure it out. I am CBarlow. (Somebody put my full name, Connie Barlow, and ref in this wikipedia page: "Evolutionary anachronism." That is a correct attribution.)

@Cbarlow: Thanks for this information. I have requested a move of the Assisted colonization page back to "Assisted migration" at Talk:Assisted colonization. You are welcome to add arguments supporting the move in that appropriate section, below my comment.

To sign your posts, you need to add four tildes at the end of your last sentence like this: ~~~~. It will give you a default signature like mine, but you can customize it with the instructions here. Mottezen (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for any new papers and google alerts pertaining to Assisted migration of Forests of North America, I don't see anything lacking in the page as it stands. I also just finally read the existing version of the "Assisted colonization" wikipedia page and am amazed at the contributions of Australian scholars (animal focused) and, owing to Australia's unique history of invasive exotic animals, very focused on the invasive fear. So I am seeing it is a very good thing that the Forests of North America have their own page, so that the debate is really history now and the emphasis is on the practical tools and considerations and the expanding examples. Overall, my next focus for wikipedia will be to work on the Glacial relict stub page. It will be very easy for me to do as I already had to do a literature search long ago in order to flesh out the paleoecology page on the Torreya Guardians website. If curious, you can eyeball that page (and its citations) here: http://www.torreyaguardians.org/assisted_migration_paleoecology.html The glacial relict argument is also a key part of the "Extinction" page on the Torreya Guardians website: http://www.torreyaguardians.org/extinction.html#assisted

YOUR POSSIBLE ROLE: Once I expand and reference and offer examples on the "Glacial relict" wikipedia page, you may want to look at it for ensuring it is neutral and then possibly linking it from the "Climate Change Adaptation" wikipage. Not sure how it would fit. But my experience includes a top U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff person asking me whether I thought other listed (endangered and threatened) plants in the southeastern United States might be unrecognized glacial relicts. I hadn't looked at any others than the two other plants endemic to the same tiny glacial refuge as Torreya taxifolia, so I didn't have a broad answer. But the importance of this topic for "climate change adaptation" is that, while foresters have already noted lags in poleward migration of very common canopy trees, by definition a "glacial relict" is a plant that is the most lagging of all. Hence an argument could be made that anything deemed by experts to be a glacial relict plant deserves immediate attention and fast-tracking. That could have very broad applications at least here in the USA for prioritizing assisted migration efforts for plants.

Just this morning I got a google alert (I have one for Joshua Tree) that shows a very interesting example of "assisted migration" and relictual understanding now pouring into the huge political controversy about declaring Joshua Tree a "climate endangered" plant. Here is the url of that: https://wildearthguardians.org/brave-new-wild/opinion/federal-court-signals-hope-for-the-climate-threatened-joshua-tree/ . Torreya clearly is, but it was never officially called "climate endangered" when it was listed as "endangered" in 1984. So, just keep this in mind how the very useful and scholarly-cited updates on wikipedia pages relevant to "climate change adaptation" could also be applied to other pages.

Prior to my getting back into wikipedia "editing", thanks to the Feb 2021 new forestry AM page, I hadn't really thought about how wikipedia can prove crucial for ensuring that there are reliable and complete introductions to crucial topics that scholars can applaud (and send their new grad students to) and that those institutions with practical needs can look to for reliable and trustworthy (and constantly updated) grounding for putting scholarship to use toward practical climate adaptation projects. Thanks for all your ongoing work in helping that service of wikipedia develop. Cbarlow (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)CBarlowCbarlow (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have recently edited the Justin Trudeau article. Please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and consider joining the discussion.Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on both of these webpages that you created, you know how to put in code that has a later citation of the same reference use the same reference number. I added a lot of references to each page, but because I don't know how to do that, the reference list is longer than it needs to be, owing to duplicates.

Please send me to the exact wikihelp page that shows me how to do this. Then I will try to do it on one instance and do a preview before I publish, to make sure I don't screw things up.

Example: on the Torreya Guardians webpage, you will see that the "Chapman, Dan" reference appears as Ref 4, 17, 40

Examples: on the Forests page, I need to Aitken 2008 is cited as "et al" for refs 7 and 34, but full list of authors in Ref 14. So for sure I will change to have all of them have full list. Then I will look for more instances in the refs — after I learn how to do this correctly.

Thanks! Cbarlow (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)CBarlowCbarlow (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbarlow: You can find relevant information at WP:REFNAME. But if you are using the visual editor, you can just copy and paste the footnote in the text and it will appear correctly as non-duplicates. Mottezen (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen: I went to the wikipedia help page you recommended and implemented the ref name code style to eliminate distinct numbering of duplicate references on the TORREYA GUARDIANS wiki page. That brought the refs down to 49 total. Note: I still write my websites directly using straight html code, so getting to this technical level of editing references on wikipedia was fun! I will do the same ref cleanup on the ASSISTED MIGRATION FORESTS page tomorrow. Cbarlow (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)CBarlowCbarlow (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen: I just finished getting rid of all the duplicate refs on the ASSISTED MIGRATION OF FORESTS OF NORTH AMERICA wikipage. That brought it down from 129 refs to 115 refs. So I think this page is pretty much free of spelling, grammar, and reference imperfections. Cbarlow (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)CBarlow[reply]

On 6 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Torreya Guardians, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Torreya Guardians are trying to save the critically endangered North American conifer Torreya taxifolia from extinction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Torreya Guardians. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Torreya Guardians), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen - I just finished, I think, my contributions to the Torreya Guardians wikipedia page that you started. I made sure to add a lot of useful images; really makes it readable now.

The reason I am writing to you is for you to take a look at the new section I created in the National Park Service page. It is: "History of Stewardship Policies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Park_Service#History_of_Resource_Stewardship_Policies

There is an interesting story here that shows how important wikipedia is. Long story short is that on 29 September 2021, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service finally posted a "decision" in the Federal Register on a formal "Petition to Downlist Florida Torreya" that I, as an individual citizen, filed in the agency 2 years earlier. This decision, for the first time, clearly identifies that the "Endangered Species" program within USFWS is far behind the climate adaptation already underway in all other agencies within the overall U.S. Department of Interior. You see, the petition decision stated that "historic range" is the only geographic area for which species recovery would count toward downlisting or delisting, and this was a major reason why my petition was decided against. That finally gets into writing what I had surmised: that this agency within the USF&WS refuses to begin climate adapation — even while another agency in USFWS, "Wildlife Refuges," is being very active with climate adapation, as shown in its participation with two other agencies (National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey) — all of which are within the U.S. Department of Interior.

Earlier this year, the National Park Service issued its climate adaptation policy: the "Resist-Adapt-Direct" Framework, coauthored with FWS and USGS staff too. This month, a technical paper was published explaining and applying it. Because "R-A-D" framework is now published, I have a chance to go back into USFWS and ask that this new policy be applied to the Endangered Species Program, using Florida Torreya as the first instance of application, thus revisiting my petition.

I already knew that this new NPS policy was hugely significant, because it was only the third time that NPS has made any such policy statement, and I knew what the previous two were: The Leopold Report in 1963 and then the "Revisiting Leopold" report in 2012. So it was pretty easy for me to go into an otherwise pretty boring National Park Service wikipedia page, and show the history of and the contemporary importance of the agency's ecological policies. So check it out! If you look at some of the explanations I gave for my various edits, you will see that I plan to contact the key authors and have them look at the new section — and to suggest any changes they think I should make, given the style and neutrality standards of wikipedia.

Bottom line, I will also point those R-A-D agency authors to the Torreya Guardians wikipedia page for a quick education on this specific controversy, and then I, outside of wikipedia, will see if they are interested in advocating within FWS that the Endangered Species program start using the climate adaptation policy that the Wildlife Refuges program has recently been pioneering — and thus take a fresh look at my petition and consider whether that would be a good place to begin applying in within the Endangered Species program.

@Cbarlow: Thank you for letting me know about these changes. The evolution of the NPS's resource stewardship practices is pretty interested. I need to tell you however, that I reverted most of the changes you made in the past two weeks on the Torreya Guardians page. Much of that content relied exclusively on primary sources, something we're trying to avoid on wikipedia. We only use primary sources standard informations about its founding, funding, governance, ect. See WP:PRIMARY. Also, as you have a WP:COI, you should refrain from editing the Torreya Guardians page. Mottezen (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen - The deletions you made are sensible. I have a better understanding now of how important third party sources are. It was good that you could move a single para from the deleted section up to the Forestry section (the one with Beardmore and Winder cite). I corresponded with Winder last week, about Coast Redwood actually, as he has a paper in review on that, and his health is really deteriorating; he retires in December from Canadian Forest Service. It did take me a lot of work to create that deleted section — however, I found that it was perfect for me to add to the Torreya Guardians website, so I did that. I would never have taken the time to so succinctly produce a neutral chronology of interactions with the government. So I am grateful that I actually took the time to do it.

Know that I have seen a draft of an article that will be relevant, as I was one of the reviewers. When it actually is published, I will let you know here. The title, etc:

"Torreya taxifolia: current status and management of one of the world’s most threatened conifers" Sarah E. Dalrymple School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, United Kingdom, s.e.dalrymple@ljmu.ac.uk

It was written as a neutral encyclopedia entry for a new encyclopedia, for something I think she called Encyclopedia of Conservation, to be published by Elsevier. Obviously, it will be behind a paywall. At this url seeking contributions, I see it is called "Imperiled: The Encyclopedia of Conservation": https://groups.google.com/a/conbio.org/g/nalist/c/GQFXttu_9dE?pli=1

Bottom line: When that entry is published it will be applicable both to the Torreya taxifolia wikipedia page and the Torreya Guardians page. I've corresponded with the author a lot; she's at the U.N. mtg in Scotland now on the ten-year updating the Convention on Biodiversity. And if anything else is published I will use this Talk page to let you know, as I understand I am blocked from adding/editing the Torreya Guardians webpage anymore.

I will continue checking with authors for the section I added to the National Park Service wikipage. And I will certainly spend some time getting some basic academic papers (especially "Review" types) to get a little substance into that stub of a page that already exists for "Glacial relict" wiki page.

@Cbarlow: I'm glad you understand why I deleted this content. I know it can be frustrating to see you contributions to this website reverted based on its arcane set of policies. If you have any more changes you want to see made to the Torreya Guardians page, please let me know, and I will make the change requested if appropriate. Mottezen (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@mottezen - Looks like a good way to proceed. I just found a short publication online here: https://onlineethics.org/cases/biodiversity-collection/assisted-migration It is titled "Assisted Migration" and it uses Torreya Guardians as the case study. "This case explores ethical issues surrounding assisted migration of endangered species. In particular, it focuses on Torreya taxifolia, an evergreen conifer tree endemic to Florida, and an activist group, Torreya Guardians." Two errors: We did not send seeds to Oregon (Mark Schwartz started that error in an "Invasive Species Council" report, with 2 coauthors, to Dept of Interior several years ago. I wrote to him to make sure he knew it was an error. Another error is that, the reason stated that I thought the species failed to move north was what I said early on, but when I stood along the Chattahoochee River, in 2015, (Video #7 on TG website), I realized that the problem was inability of the seed to float back upstream (north). However, no third-party has quoted me on that, so it can't be used in wikipedia. The important thing about this new short case study is it quotes me on the importance of deep-time and thus the need to rethink historic range. It quotes my chapter in an MIT Press book: Barlow, C. 2009. “Deep Time Lags: Lessons from Pleistocene Ecology.” In: E. Crist, H.B. Rinker, editors. Gaia in turmoil: climate change, biodepletion, and earth ethics in an age of crisis. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. So that is a third party quoting from my book. Note: this issue of "glacial relict" is going to become important, as the Decision Sept 2021 against my Petition to Downlist specifically backtracked, arguing against USFWS own previous statements in all recovery plan updates, about T. taxifolia's fact as a glacial relict. Nobody has ever questioned that before, but this Decision did. So, for the first time, Torreya advocates will have to counter that. Possibly adding a glacial relict section to the Torreya taxifolia wikipedia page. But for now, I just plan to flesh out the "Glacial relict" wikipedia page with best academic cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbarlow (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 October 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) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Assisted migration of forests in North America you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen - Today I did a detailed edit on the ASSISTED MIGRATION OF FORESTS IN NORTH AMERICA PAGE up through the end of the EARLY SCHOLARSHIP AND DEBATE SECTION. I did major stuff toward making the page flow better and eliminating redundancies and non-essentials. The biggest changes were in the EARLY SCHOLARSHIP section. I believe I made important improvements along the lines of wikipedia standards and writerly improvement. But that's up to you to decide. I do hope that, on balance, you will find my edits to be a definite improvement. This is USER CONNIEBARLOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbarlow (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Assisted migration of forests in North America you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Assisted migration of forests in North America for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Assisted migration of forests in North America at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Constantine ✍ 19:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Justin Trudeau into Domestic policy of the Justin Trudeau government. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Assisted migration of forests in North America, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as part of the ongoing assisted migration of forests in North America, the western larch was selected for reforestation projects nearly 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) north of its native range? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Assisted migration of forests in North America. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Assisted migration of forests in North America), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen - See that I added a new para in the RECENT DEVELOPMENTS section of "Assisted Migration of Forests in North America". I noticed that the way I entered the reference for this para had something wrong with it. And I can't remember how to show that the second time I used the same reference it uses the same citation number. So please go in there and correct that. And absolutely do read the whole referenced article. It is fantastic! I looked up the freelance author's personal website; he is very experienced. There were several great quotes in that article, but I know that wikipedia policy is to minimize them. The partial quote I used comes from a major actor in the assisted migration research and practice: Brian Palik, USFS in Minnesota. Cbarlow (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC) CBarlow[reply]

Nice addition! I'll check the article out. I made the fix. Mottezen (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this

You shouldn't say "fiscally conservative" unless you quote Moscrop. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mottezen. I've been working on the Torreya taxifolia page for several weeks, and just got a big smackdown, including my first POV warning. Please take a look, and see how I responded. Some of the criticism was right on, but some seems to be basic worldview differences between an established wikipedia editor who specializes on gaming and plant taxonomy and me who is rather new to wiki work and is primarily interested in aspects of conservation biology, forestry, and climate change/adaptation that have major impacts on future prospects for a healthy biosphere and humanity. You will see that I reworked almost everything in the original, except I did not reshape/shorten the "Common names" section, which has a lot of detail that the history of plant taxonomy folks might appreciate but that seemed more detailed than helpful from the standpoint of an encyclopedia that gives readers the grounding, with cites, to go deeper where they wish. And after this smackdown by a plant taxonomy contributor to wiki, I will certainly not touch that section.

If you look in the comments I made today on the Talk page of torreya taxifolia, while trying to respond in a helpful way to the POV critic, you will see the time dimension and opportunity that caused me to finally start working on this page: August 8 deadline for comments on a proposed new USA Endangered Species Act regulatory change that would, for the first time, expressly authorize that "historical range" as the locus for "recovery" be expanded to include other sites if the historical range has been made unsuitable owing to either "climate change or invasive species." I also plan to invite Mark Schwartz (the main opponent of me and Torreya Guardians from the get-go) to look at the new page and tell me changes he would like (and to upload some images of his own that I can then add to the page). There was barely anything about his contributions in the page when I started working on it. So I really beefed up the expression of his contributions.

Yes, I am an advocate for the assisted migration of Torreya taxifolia, so my work on that page has to be carefully assessed by others to ensure non-bias. My sense is that, with the new proposed regulation change, all that is needed for the situation to trend in the way I personally want it to is for the wikipedia page to truly be objective and fully informative of the basic understanding of this species, but also of the history of actions in its behalf and of the controversy. Do take a look. Cbarlow (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mottezen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government".

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. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. ✗plicit 00:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mottezen: How goes it? I've reverted this. You've taken his life history away when a lot of it is valid and not promotional in any manner. You are allows primary sources if there is WP:SECONDARY sources to back the stuff up . Sources from academics are generally a secondary source, for example a cv. The awards are gone, and the reference is perfectly valid.Some of it promo like "He was known for stating that a paradigm shift can change the way we view human sexuality". I would trim it, take away the stuff, and bung the book entry in a bib section. The sexual behaviour section can go. Stuff that promo. Awards needs to stay as the decent refs. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mottezen. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Coleman Tech Charter High School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. BangJan1999 02:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Graham Fraser (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant disambiguation page; the primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Graham Fraser (otolaryngologist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Graham Fraser pioneered cochlear implantation in the United Kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Graham Fraser (otolaryngologist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Graham Fraser (otolaryngologist)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mottezen, you requested new hooks when you reviewed this nomination, and the nominator has provided two possibilities. Please return at your earliest convenience to review the new hooks, or if you won't be able to return, please ping me so I can call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alt1 is good, the dyk nomination can advance! Mottezen (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1968 government budgets has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1969 government budgets has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]