Qwert1234

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Plant List

You could use the template {{TPLF}} for the Plant list. Format is {{TPLF|2014|Dec.|8}} for today's date. It picks up the page name itself. Regards and enjoy editing! Andyboorman (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights

Dear Qwert1234, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling rights

After you were granted patroller user rights, it seems you did zero patrolling. (since you are autopatroller, the pages you edit gets automatically marked. But if you have patrolled pages , and marked them patrolled, your edit gets a "marked revision (number) of page (page name) patrolled")

If you dont wish to patrol pages, this is no problem at all, but please inform me if you tried and experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.

Since you have not made use of your patroller user rights, I need to know if you still want to keep them, because you plan to use them in the future, or likevise. If you are not interested in patrolling, you dont need to do anything, and I will remove the user rights in a couple of days.

In any case you will keep your autopatrol user right, but there is no need for both.

But please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

If you want to try to patrol pages:

In Special:NewPages you can see the not patrolled new pages with yellow background. Presently there are probably none, since the pages made today and the last days has been made by users who already have 'autopatrolled' user rights. But if you do, or you choose to see the last 500 newly made pages, you may se files with yellow background. You can click on such a file, and scroll down to absolute down-right corner, where you can read "mark as patrolled" or similair, becasue the contributor does not have autoptarolled/patrolled user rights. When you click on the link, the file becomes patrolled.

But theres older files that need patrolling. In unpatrolled pages on recent changes, and you will see a list of unpatrolled pages. You will see a red colored ! in front of the unpatrolled file. If you click on each diff, you can mark the diff patrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Qwert1234, I removed your patrol rights since you havnt used them during the last month. You are still autopatrolled, and should you wish start patrol pages in the future, you will get your patrol rights back. Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dichocarpum

Hi @Qwert1234: I notice your edits on Dichocarpum, which is on my watchlist. I have no major problems with your work and I have added a couple of references (they will need templating sometime). However, Xiang et al., (2017) seriously questions the monophyly of the subgeneric classification. The previous references are incomplete as regards this as well, with some problems for example whether or not D. dalzielii and relatives are in their own section or a subsection of D. sect. Dichocarpum. Unless there is monophyly and overarching consensus for subgeneric classifications I tend to get rid of them, particularly for a relatively small genus. Do you have any views? I will not act in the very near future, but could do once I have completed a bit of work on Caryophyllales. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Perilla

I question your edits on Perilla, as your added species are synonyms according to the main reference. Have you more up to date references than the Plant list, which has not been updated since 2013, whereas WCSP is updated every couple of month? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please look, Perilla, YList, Japan--Qwert1234 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that list is just one opinion. WCSP is based out of Kew Botanic Gardens and I would rather go with them, as well as other sources I have located. I will leave your removal of the redirect for now, then re-visit with a disputed tag in a few days. Meanwhile add the online list you cite above otherwise your edit is close to OR. I tend to go with WCSP as my number one, as it is about 99.5% accurate, but they do not cover all families. All other secondary sources, books, flora etc are about 80/90% accurate in my opinion and between one and ten years out of date. You can always contact Govaerts at Kew for an opinion, they are very helpful and will change if they buy your argument. Please note, WS is more concerned with the putative wild species and less with the cultivated forms, whuch I believe are largely based out of strains of what used to be called Perilla citriodora. Andyboorman (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Another point that has just occurred to me is that Perilla has been cultivated for more than a thousand years and therefore there are unlikely to be any purely "wild" genotypes growing anywhere. The so called species, as well as cultigens, hybridise readily along often with spontaneous chromosome doubling and prodigy are fertile. Not diagnostic of a single species, but a bit like Cannabis sativa. It is bit pointless forming species in the absence of good evidence. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)