User talk:Chhe/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Chhe, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/December 2008#Chhe. SoxBot X (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I've been coming across your recent contributions on plant species. Good work so far! I see one of the references you're using is from

Oops, sorry, one more thing. Also kindly watch the

overlinking. I've counted at least three links to genus in the same paragraph. The first mention of the term is all that requires linking. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk

) 04:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

..for clarifying when the ceasefire was first broken! Chesdovi (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am electricRush and I would like to invite you to join the Science Debate Forum. It is open to anyone who has an interest in science, and is completely free. We have a welcoming community and discussion forums in all subjects ranging from cosmology to physics to politics. In general it is a great discussion board that fits all scientific interests.

Thanks, -

Thanks for uploading File:Bertoloni.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:KarlKoch.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 05:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for raising the issue of the names - I really needed to make it clearer - which, I must admit, is rather difficult for an amateur. The taxonomists seem to have been extremely busy in recent years - especially with orchids! Anyway, to cut a long story short, I have tried to make the issue as clear as I can on the

"Although the name Dockrillia was established as far back as 1981, it is only in recent years that the name has been resurrected. The genus Dockrillia has been split off from Dendrobium and comprises the "terete-leaved" group of "dendrobes". This revision has been generally accepted in Australia. Species in Dockrillia are characterised by succulent leaves which are rounded in cross-section (terete) and which arise from a creeping rhizome. Currently about 28 species are recognised. Dockrillia is named after Alick Dockrill." From: http://asgap.org.au/APOL23/sep01-2.html Australian Plants Online. "What is a Dockrillia?"

Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If Dockrillia has only recently been "resurrected" that may explain why there aren't any search matches for Dockrillia wassellii under a google scholarly search.Chhe (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RobertWood.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --(ESkog)^(Talk) 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RobertWood.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Peripitus (Talk) 03:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AmesPainting.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

Thanks for uploading File:Wallacesesquipedale.jpg: it's a great image, but while you've indicated that its author was Wallace, you've not given the date that the original was created by Wallace or named the source where you obtained the image: if you scanned it from a book, please say so and name the book, if it came from an online source a link would be appropriate. The information is needed to confirm that the image is verifiably in the public domain. I noticed the image where you'd added it on the Angraecum sesquipedale article, and found it ideal for an article on Darwin's book on the Fertilisation of Orchids which is currently under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1, so it'll be great if you can provide the information so that the article can use the image. Thanks again for your work on this, dave souza, talk 11:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember where I got the image, but I probably got it directly from the source. I'll have to go to the library again and look at the article to refresh my memory. As to the date the image was published it states it directly on the caption, namely 1867. If you want to know the month too it was October, but I don't know the day. It was published by Wallace in the Quarterly Journal of Science and the article was called Creation by Law. In the article he talks about the Duke of Argyll's book "The Reign of Law" and in the article is that drawing of his that is meant to illustrate how he envisions Angraecum sesquipedale is fertilized. Since the Wallace's journal article was published in the 1800's its in the public domain. 1867 Creation by law. Quarterly Journal of Science, 4 [No. 16]: 470-488 (October). If this still isn't good enough tell me and I'll go back and try to get the drawing by wallace again.Chhe (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, did you scan it from the original journal or from a more recent book or article about the journal? The requirement will be well met if you state on the image summary where you scanned it from, and confirm there that it was first pubished in 1867 and was a drawing by Wallace. I realise that you've put it in the article, but the important thing is to have it on the image file page itself so that as uploader you've directly confirmed the source of the image. Sorry about the hassle, but it's understandable that Wikipedia has to be very formal about these copyright issues. dave souza, talk 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, that was enough information to resolve the issue. As you'll probably have noticed, Jappalang has found more information and added it in template form,[1] Did try searching for it online myself, but failed to find that source! Thanks again, dave souza, talk 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the input. I'll be working in the sandbox on the Karl Rove article. I'd appreciate input when I'm finished. thanks,

Hello, Chhe. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Awarded to Chhe for stayin' cool and taking the right actions to calm down an ugly situation on the Karl Rove page in August, 2009... many thanks!

Jusdafax (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I just realized my negligible copy-editing to the article Angraecum sesquipedale‎ is probably causing your more significant edits to have annoying edit-conflicts! Sorry about that, I'll wait till later :) ...

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 03:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PS Lol... see the first edit I made to your page; strange, I've never seen that happen before. I guess that's what happens when an incorrectly formatted barnstar is added ;) . . .

Thanks for uploading File:CaulolatilusCyanops.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

File:CaulolatilusCyanops.jpg does in fact list the author. It is Brandi Noble. The picture is in the public domain and is currently the property of NOAA.Chhe (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

With current sourcing there is no way this can be verified, please add proper source info as outlined below. feydey (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a way to verify the source. Its called contacting the NOAA. You just didn't want to do the work required. The NOAA also keeps an online database of the image I used which I've linked to. In the future first attempt to verify the source before you tag an image saying there isn't one.Chhe (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the burden of proof is on the uploader. Now the image is properly sourced. feydey (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When uploading a work of the United States federal government that is in the public domain always link to the source webpage or explain how you found and identified the work. If works cannot be confirmed as created by the U.S. federal government, they will be deleted.

Just a few tips for adding sources (adapted from

Good examples of source descriptions:

A good source for an image from an internet location is to point to the HTML page that contains the image ( http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=3097 ) and not directly to the image itself: ( http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_021028-N-3228G-006.jpg ).

A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information) and not just title and author.

• Walentyna Korpalska (1981). Władysław Eugeniusz Sikorski - Biografia Polityczna. Warszawa: Ossolineum. p. 3.
  ISBN 83-04-00901-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |coauthors= (help
  )
• Obtained from NOAA http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/photogallery/Fish/pages/0153.html
• Jarvis, Peter L. (2 April 2003). "Metabolic responses to salinity acclimation in juvenile shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum". Aquaculture. 219 (1–4): pages 891–909.
  doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00063-2. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
  )

• http://www.google.com
• New York Times
• LOC
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
• http://www.noaa.gov/

Please source Your images correctly, feydey (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:CarcharhinusAcronotus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

This file is a duplicate. Its supposed to be deleted for that reason. You changed the tag on it.Chhe (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:CarcharhinusSignatus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

This file is a duplicate. Its supposed to be deleted for that reason. You changed the tag on it.Chhe (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

feydey (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Feydey, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your wrong again. It took me less than a minute to find the duplicate file in commons. The duplicate file is named File:Spinner shark nmfs.jpg. Your administrative decision not to delete File:CarcharhinusBrevipinna.jpg was clearly a mistake. P.S. There was no need to create a

deletion discussion because immediately after adding the image I checked the species wiki page and saw the image that somebody added earlier. Somebody beat me to it and clearly there is no need for two pics of the same thing.Chhe (talk

) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:CarcharhinusBrevipinna.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

This file is a duplicate. Its supposed to be deleted for that reason. You changed the tag on it.Chhe (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you have been creating articles on several species of fish over the past few days, which is great; we are always looking for more editors to work on Wikiproject Fishes. However, I would advise you to take a look at the project page; one of the protocols for fish articles is that the article name MUST be the species common (ie non Latin name), unless none exists. Most of the species you have ceated an article for do have a common name, which can easily be found on fishbase, or simply by looking at the family page on Wikipedia. Could you review these articles and move them to the common name article (using the move tab). Also, consider using information from fishbase to flesh out the articles; your articles have only a single piece of information which relates to the classification, and therefore not greatly useful to anyone researching the species. Laastly, on the talk page of each article you create, could you please place the template {{Fishproject}}, which generates a Wikiproject:Fishes template, and helps us keep track of new articles which need assessing.

Cheers, Kare Kare (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A great many of the species I added go by several different common names and considering that most of them are quite obscure its impossible to know which common name is most common. If I read the wiki fish project standard correctly the scientific name should be used under this condition (pretty strange standard, definitely should be changed). I'm sure there was a few I missed that don't fall into this category though so I'll look over my recent additions again. Also, I noticed that most of the genera articles list a single common name next to its corresponding scientific name even though a given species may go by many more common names. Also, I was planning to come back and add more information on the stub articles later. P.S. the only reason I didn't add any category templates was because I didn't know which one would be the best for each species.Chhe (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it seems like a strange policy, but what fishbase uses is the standard, and those common names listed in the genera articles are taken from fishbase so use these if all else fails. If you know (or other sources say) that other common names are used, mention it in the first sentence of the article eg "The huge mountainfish, Corus curus (also known as the redeye trout).." etc. Really, in nearly all animal articles, a scientific name is only used as the namespace when no common name exists. As for the template, im not talking about categories, but the article talkpage (the template just says the page is a fish relate drpoject and allows for easy rating of articles). Cool to hear you'll be adding to the articles. Cheers, Kare Kare (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chhe, What happened with those shark images was when I clicked through to the link provided to commons there was no image there. To be on the safe side I did not delete, as there was no other reason to give them the chop. There is a different option to use where the name is different on commons. You used the {{db-f8}} which says that the duplicate has the same name. You should have used the form {{db-f8|Spinner shark nmfs.jpg}}. I did not use any administrative powers to not delete those pictures. There was no spite involved in the failure to delete, just no apparent reason. You could have used the {{db-g7}} in these cases too, which means that you as the user who put them there has changed your mind. I only occasionally contact people whose nominations I declined, because there are heaps more deletions to do, and the nominator can always ask if they care, like you did. Now that you have explained the other names I can delete them safely! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would you lease comment regarding the added citations here, thanks.

I have added a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in your defense. I have been busy with the issue of de-adminship, and wasn't watching. Thanks for standing up for what you believe to be right! Jusdafax 01:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Chhe. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you started several articles on different types of

The checkmates you added are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#David mates (good for him...). Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Please assume good faith Malke. Personally though, in one of your edits which you deemed correct, you deleted a paragraph with many sources, left half a cite in it's place, and claimed it had NPOV, I would have reverted as well. I assume you meant POV, or point of view.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question at that talk page, the contributor who created that article has verifiably introduced copyright violations into many articles on Wikipedia, necessitating a review of all of his contributions. In accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, all of his major text contributions may need to be presumptively deleted if it cannot be verified that they are clear of copyright concerns. However, rather than delete them immediately, the articles were tagged to provide an opportunity for interested contributors to rewrite them or to verify that they were free of copyright concerns. Unfortunately, there's a lot of collateral damage from this kind of thing.

In this particular case, though, we don't have to guess. I have verified pasting at the article's inception from [2], which clearly predates our article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 04:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Help us

spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Excellent contributions though :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request for Input on talk page

I'm happy to explain this issue, but unless some drastic (and I suspect wholly unwarranted) changes to the page are made, the cover does not belong there. I am going to remove it again, and I ask that you do not restore... J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary shows that it was first removed by you. Then I undid it per edit summary. Then Holorgonium undid my undue. And then I started a section on the talk page to discuss it. The only response I've gotten yet has been from Jarhed which so far seems to have given a nonsensical response indicative of trolling. There is no need to remove the image again as to my knowledge its currently not there. I'm not sure who originally added it though.Chhe (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you didn't even attempt to add a non-free use rationale to the image page when you added the image back. I can see you don't really know anything about our

non-free content criteria- that's fine, no one's going to force you to learn them. However, until you have a better idea of how and why non-free content is used on Wikipedia, I advise you don't get involved with it. If you have any questions about the issue, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page, but I can assure you that you really don't have anything close to a case here. J Milburn (talk

) 01:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know I had to add a non-free use rationale to the image page. I'm not familiar with

non-free content criteria, but why would the tag under the licensing on the images' page seem to indicate that the image could be used on pages that discuss the book?Chhe (talk

) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? J Milburn (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I'm not watching your talk page. Could you ping me on mine? J Milburn (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Howard Zinn

Could you remove or refactor your recent comment [4] to de-escalate the tension and focus the discussion on content rather than on editors? Thanks! --

talk

) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No. From my reading of the talk page section a few editors were ganging up on another editor and behaving rudely. I merely stated to another editor that he/she should explain their position in detail instead of quoting the wiki policy and expecting the other editor to understand. What do you find wrong with this?Chhe (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What do I find wrong?

WP:NPA

to start. We need to de-escalate the problems, not add to them.

If you think editors are ganging up, let them know on their talk pages, and make it clear what specific problems they are causing. --

talk

) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz in my opinion you were among the group who were ganging up on that other editor. Its also ironic that you are now quoting policies to me without explanation. Even a cursory glance shows that my comment has nothing to do with

WP:NPA. I think you should reread a few of your past posts and reconsider if they served to escalate the dispute.Chhe (talk

) 19:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"make it clear what specific problems they are causing." When editors do not give such specifics, especially when asked, their behavior could appear harassing or disruptive. That's why it's important to just focus on content instead. --

talk

) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, please stop posting on my talk page unless you have something civil to say. I explained my words very eloquently to you and if you simply don't understand thats a shame, but there is nothing I can do about that. Right now your harassing me. Another irony.Chhe (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always happy to refactor. Since you're not giving any specifics, despite my request that to do so, I've just generalized a bit. --

talk

) 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Hello, what happened to your RFC? I can't find it. I think you raised some valid points (subsequently deleted by another editor) at SP Talk--points that bear on what look rather like attempts to sanitize the article yet again (yawn) by stripping out certain information. Writegeist (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened was that I started an RFC because we had been talking about downsizing sections in general at length and we weren't getting anywhere. The discussions concerning downsizing sections spanned three sections on the talk page and it kept evolving into slightly different things that one user wanted to remove. So I started an RFC to get some independent outside opinions on the matter. Perfectly in keeping with wikipedia policy. Then Malke 2010 undid my placing of an RFC claiming that I needed consensus just to place an RFC. I undid his then he undid mine. This went on for a while until he violated 3RR. I then started an ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#User:Malke 2010. The ANI failed. The user called in his armada. I think Malke 2010 has a long list of users and admins that he has backdoor email relationships with that he/she calls in whenever problems arrive. They closed out discussion claiming that I couldn't start an RFC because we didn't discuss the proposals that Malke 2010 gave even though even the most cursory glance shows that we clearly have been discussing them for a long time without progress. I'm perfectly aware of how RFC's work and RFC policy and in all the time I've been at wikipedia I never seen such a contorted reasoning by an admin. Where things stand now I don't know. I haven't looked at the Sarah Palin talk page or the article itself so I don't know if Malke 2010 has gone ahead and made any changes to the page. If you want your welcome to contribute to the discussion. The only other user involved lately was Jarhed who said that he wouldn't contribute until Monday last he posted.Chhe (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I don't really want to get involved in the "discussion". I was quite deeply involved in it in the run-up to the election, when it got really ugly, and to be honest I can't be arsed to repeat the experience, it was so tedious. There were very concerted efforts, IMO, by the Palinites--one an ever-present SPA who still seems to watch over the article 24/7--to sanitize the article, and to me it's now beginning to look like history repeating itself. I intend leaving it alone until/unless the sainted Sarah becomes of consuming popular interest again, in which case I may, against my better judgement, be tempted to return to add my 2c in a futile attempt to help restore NPOV, against determined opposition from the saint's devoted acolytes. (And restore info presently being stripped out.) For the time being, I only turn to the article and the talk page when I want a good laugh. Take care in there! Writegeist (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

On 18 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:JasminumSambacVine.jpg

Just letting you know that your picture is definitely not Jasminum sambac. The plant in your picture, I am 100% sure, is a Trachelospermum jasminoides.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara (talk • contribs)

You could be right. I took the picture when I visited a local conservatory. Its possible though that they mislabeled the plant or that I accidentally mislabeled the photo myself. Unfortunately I can't remember, it was too long ago. Also, from looking at a quick google image search of these two species they both look very much like the photo I posted so I can't tell myself if its the wrong species. And so I'll take your word for it. You may want to mark the photo for deletion if your certain its the wrong one.Chhe (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

variety

Hi Chhe, an article you are working on is on my watchlist. I mentioned an edit you made here; the reply will be helpful to your expansion of the article. cygnis insignis 05:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks.Chhe (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Harvard refs

How are you doing with Angraecum sesquipedale? Any more difficulties for me to look at? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

no, i think understand what i did wrong. thanks for the help.Chhe (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.