User talk:Citronnel

Welcome!

Hello, Citronnel, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 13:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:LINE2

Hello, Citronnel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:LINE2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:LINE2

Hello, Citronnel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "LINE2".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gemascolex and Gemascolex stirlingi

Hi there! I see you've recently created the articles Gemascolex and Gemascolex stirlingi, however, the sources you have used for these articles (iNaturalist and the Ellura Sanctuary website) are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards and should not be used as references for articles. Data on iNaturalist is either user-generated or taken from Wikipedia articles, and the Ellura Sanctuary website is a non-expert self-published source. Please avoid using these websites in your future editing - if you would like help finding reliable sources on particular topics, especially in the realm of biology, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I would be happy to assist! I have edited both pages to replace them with a reliable source, the Australian Faunal Directory, but wanted to let you know why I did so and why the sources you used are considered unreliable. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethmostigmus! Yes I do see now how these references could be considered unreliable in hindsight. Thank you for assisting with updating the references and taxonomy box! I wasn't aware of the AFD website before now, I'll be sure to use this in the future. Cheers :) Citronnel (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inaturalist

Please don't create articles based on Inaturalist, which is a wiki. Articles should be based on (preferably multiple) reliable sources and should not use user-generated content as references. I see you got exactly the same warning last month right above, but apparently you haven't changed your approach. Please be aware that if you continue like this, I'll ask for a topic ban from creating articles or a block from the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metrosideros bartlettii

Hi there! I saw your recent edit to Metrosideros bartlettii, regarding the 2021 paper; genetically, M. bartlettii does not have a close relative and an isolate in the subclade "Va". M. robusta and M. excelsa are related, as well as the other species within the subclade. I was going with what Drummond et al. 2000 stated. Clearly, there has been more research regarding the evolution of Metrosideros; the 2021 study did a much more comprehensive revision of the genus instead of focusing on M. bartlettii. Either way, that's pretty much what I wanted to say. Cheers. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexeyevitch! In the line I removed, the 4th page of the 2021 paper (containing Figure 1) was directly referenced, which didn't lend support to this claim. Reading through Drummond et al. 2000, I don't see any evidence that M. robusta and M. excelsa are the most closely related species to M. bartlettii. In fact, this claim is actually made in reference to another paper, doi: 10.1073/pnas.050351197 . And if you read through this paper, Figure 1 provides extremely similar evidence to the 2021 paper, that M. bartlettii is the outgroup to a clade that contains species distributed throughout the Pacific. I may have misinterpreted something here (and definitely feel free to correct me), but I can't seem to find primary evidence in any of these papers that supports the initial claim I deleted Citronnel (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Drummond et al. 2000: "M. bartlettii is a unique species, distinct from its two closest relatives M. robusta and M. excelsa". Wright et al. 2021 used primarily ribosomal DNA testing in their study, and produced a similar result that M. robusta and M. excelsa "are closely related" to M. bartlettii, but also related to the other species within the subclade "Va". Wright et al. 2021 also mentioned that it "is sister to the other species in the subclade". Hopefully that sorted it out. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch, I see what you are saying here, but if you read the Drummond et al. 2000 paper you will see that this assertion comes from another study. In the introduction they state "Recent phylogenetic analysis of Metrosideros based on internally transcribed spacer (ITS) region DNA sequence has shown that M. bartlettii is genetically distinct from its closest relatives, M. excelsa and M. robusta (Wright et al. 2000)." The Wright et al. 2000 paper (Titled "Riding the ice age El Nino? Pacific biogeography and evolution of Metrosideros subg. Metrosideros inferred from nrDNA") is what I refer to in my previous comment. At the very least, this paper should be the one referenced for the initial claim, although if you read through this paper, then you can see that M. bartlettii is the outgroup to a clade that contains species distributed throughout the Pacific. Hopefully this makes sense, cheers! Citronnel (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does! Thanks. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]