User talk:Domestic Cat

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of AtlanticDeep (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Hey, I'm not really the guy to talk to- I'm only a member of the project because I wrote the

Removing that information is probably a good idea. Be sure to use a descriptive

Ah. Sorry - I saw your edit summary :) I didn't look at the registration log. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikiproject cats. Although I am not really a main contributor to the project yet, I thought it'd be nice to welcome you.

Anyways, one thing you could do is help me create an article about the

• Create: Old Ephraim (giant grizzly bear), Jarkov Mammoth, Vinciguerria (genus).

• Maintain: Portal:Animals; nominate DYKs.

• Expand:
  Goldador
  .

• Recruit more members!

Cheers, Intelligentsium 01:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Ephraim is a grizzly killed in 1911, not a species of megafauna (Source). I had misinterpreted the short description on the

requests page, in my hurry to get the task list done. My mistake! If you need helpers, you can contact anyone on the participants list (though some may be inactive). I recommend User:ZooPro; he is the other coordinator and knows a lot about animals, but he is busy because he has another project (or two) to coordinate. If you wanted a DYK though, you should have created it in your userspace first. Thanks for your contributions! Intelligentsium 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I will try my best to assist.ZooPro 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Ephraim is now DYK quality. I have taken the liberty of nominating it, crediting you as the creator (here). Intelligentsium 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Domestic Cat. I've been watching that Squirrel saga unfold, and when you decided to retire, I was really sad. The thing is, no matter where in life, there will always be some people whose opinions do not agree with yours, though I completely understand how you felt. I'd just like to let you know that I am really glad you decided to come back, and that if you have an issue, its always good to talk to an admin first. I'm not an admin myself, but people don't become admins for being mean.

I'll support you too, Brambleclawx 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your decision to stay. I think coordinator ZooPro and I agree in that any contributions, however small, are always valued at WikiProject Animals, and also in any other projects in which you may have been or may be involved. I concur with the sentiments expressed by User:Brambleclawx above; though not necessarily an admin (who have no special status), it is always good to discuss with a more experienced user when there is an issue. Intelligentsium 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned admins simply because admins are experienced. Brambleclawx 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed your now archived apology (for the statement about "harassment" you made), and I thought it would be right to apologise as well. Sorry for being a bit rude and blunt as far as the squirrel project matter went; I have no resentments to you or questions as to your contributions now, and I quite look forward to collaborating with you (as with any contributor) at WikiProject Mammals etc. Glad you decided to stay on. Note to Intelligentsium and Brambleclawx: ahem, ahem, as to the thing on admins; I know of at least two admins whose appointments caused people to stop editing entirely. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I never knew... Brambleclawx 23:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for working to address the copyright concerns, but I'm afraid that what you've produced here is far too close a paraphrase of the original source. Unless a source is public domain or otherwise licensed compatibly for our use, we must rewrite it completely or indicate that we are quoting from it with quotation marks. While some brief factual points may not be copyrightable, when they are completely devoid of creativity, the threshold for creativity in the US is quite low. Accordingly, text like this is much too close to the original:

These sheep are mostly white in colour, with a small proportion of brown. The body is white with brown spots on the face and tail.

With the first sentence, you've only altered the word "they", replacing it with "These sheep", and removed the percentages. You haven't changed the second sentence at all.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, I'll revise this text. But the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues in the future. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. ZooPro 05:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]