User talk:Averixus

15 February 2022

Re: Monstera adansonii

Hello. Just FYI you removed my edit, but in doing so propagated a common misconception. Monstera adansonii is not the swiss cheese plant. If you Google swiss cheese plant or Monstera deliciosa you will note that the incorrect plant is being displayed, due in part to this mistake in Wikipedia. Colinmcdermott (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Colinmcdermott:. I'm afraid yours is the misconception. Both M. deliciosa and M. adansonii are sometimes known by the name "swiss cheese plant", as shown in the cited source which you removed. It's not at all unusual for common names to be ambiguous or to refer to multiple species, and the disambiguation page for swiss cheese plant is sufficient to resolve that ambiguity. I will add a note to the Monstera adansonii page to directly address the potential confusion associated with the common name, to match that on the Monstera deliciosa page. Please don't remove sourced information simply because you don't agree with it. Averixus (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see your points, and appreciate any work to correct. But are you not worried we are propagating misinformation? I am sure if you were to ask 99/100 plant experts they would agree that M. deliciosa should be returned for, and considered the primary example of said name? I think it is important here to consider that by feeding this information to Google Wikipedia is directly influencing the results and allowing many people to see incorrect information. Please do check Google if you haven't already it will illustrate my point well. Thanks Colinmcdermott (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Colinmcdermott:. I don't think this is misinformation at all. Lots of common names refer to multiple species, and although that can be annoying and confusing, it's not misinformation. A common name is any name which is used to refer to a species, so it's really not possible for a common name to be "incorrect". If it's a name people sometimes use to refer to the plant, then it's a real common name - and the source cited in the article is enough to demonstate that people sometimes use "Swiss cheese plant" for M. adansonii. Including all widely-used common names for a species is part of maintaining a neutral point of view - we can't just remove some names based on our own preference.

I think that intentionally removing the reference to a widely-used common name would be more damaging than including it. If someone gets an M. adansonii which is labelled "Swiss cheese plant" and searches to learn more, it would be really unhelpful if they were taken straight to M. deliciosa. Much better for them to be taken to a disambiguation where they can at least learn that the name is used for multiple species, and go on to determine the identity of their specific plant.

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cupping therapy on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Tradescantia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tradescantia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to abortion, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Neltuma juliflora, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]