I understand that Roger is only trying to uphold the rules and policies of Wikipedia, I think this is the 5th time I repeated this. However, the rules and policies in place aren't always the right rules for everything. I do think that it's a bit unfair that just any editor can "oppose" whatever they want in whatever subject. For all I know, half the people that "opposed" aren't even high school graduates yet (I'm not saying anyone that did oppose is, I'm just saying that this kind of scenario is possible). I think Wikipedia should have a policy wherein editors with certain educational backgrounds and expertise in certain fields (ie. toxicology and herpetology) should be the ones making the decisions in cases where there are content disputes which are relevant to their educational background and studies. Instead, we have a free-for-all policy where anyone can oppose or agree to a request. That isn't exactly what I would call "order". So you know a bit of zoology, big deal. Everyone knows the basics - tigers are the biggest cats, chimps are highly intelligent, some snakes constrict their prey and others use venom to kill, and on and on. A lot of people know the basics and some even know a little beyond that. That isn't equivalent to someone with years of college study on zoological subjects and hands on experience with wild animals. Bastian (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why would you change the a title of a section on the Black mamba page from Geographical distribution, habitat, and status to Distribution, habitat, and status? I was trying to be specific - what is "distribution"? It could mean "distribution" (as in the action of sharing something out among a number of recipients, in this case "sharing black mamba's" - like cocaine distribution). I'm going to change it to "Geographical range, habitat, and status". Use range instead of distribution. Bastian (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much between the choices for headers. As for the discussion, can you discuss whether the page should be moved on the merits, not the editors? That's the main point I was trying to get across there; that's the sort of thing the relevant Wikipedia rules and conventions are about. —innotata 00:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have been removing legitimate categories from redirects. Is there some reason for this? Since categories are effectively the indices to Wikipedia, it makes sense to include redirects where they are likely alternative titles. I can see stronger reasons for moving the category from (in that instance)

Shouldn't the actual articles be categorised? Also, when I changed these articles, in all but three the category had been moved from the redirects where it was before to the articles, so I thought the remaining ones should be made consistent. —innotata 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been removing Category:Monotypic bird genera from any articles at common-name titles, and I wouldn't recommend doing so (and certainly not without prior agreement from the project). Categorising the redirects was intended to supplement the main article categorisation in this case. There are good reasons for categorising redirects, particularly in cases like this where the article title is not similar to the redirect. I agree that consistency is valuable, and I this case I think it would be appropriate to consistently apply the category to all genus-name redirects to common-name articles on monotypic genera, alongside all monotypic bird genera at scientific-name titles (currently only prehistoric taxa, I think; Sirystes seems to be interpreted as a common name). --Stemonitis (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't really object to both articles and redirects being categorised; I just noticed that all the others had been changed. Sirystes is a common name (the Handbook of the Birds of the World used it, without alt names, you can see the taxonomy section on the Internet Bird Collection), and I can't imagine such mistakes would go unnoticed here. —innotata 21:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, but I felt I had to decline your CSD:G4 deletion request for Andy Lehrer, as it did not appear to be "substantially identical to" the version deleted as a result of the October 2010 discussion. The main difference is that the latest version includes a lot more "references". I do think there's a good chance it still fails notability, but I fear it would need a new discussion. (Alternatively, if there has been a later deletion discussion of a version more similar to this one that I have missed, please let me know and I'll revisit my decision) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are not a lot more references; as far as I remember, all of the actual references (not the list of works by Lehrer) present were included in the old version (since I looked at them while the deletion discussion was going on), though there are more inline refs. The text is also very similar if not identical. So it seemed to me this meets the speedy deletion criteria. There also is nothing additional to establish notability, though this would not be enough for speedy deletion. Anyhow, I'll nominate it for deletion through AfD soon. —innotata 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for your contribution to coyote! Chrisrus (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean removing vandalism and dubious additions … I've watchlisted the page after seeing the edit war where someone was claiming that reports of coyotes eating pets are made up, but that's as far as I'll wade into such articles, I expect. Thank you for trying to improve

New Guinea Singing Dog, though! —innotata 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, if you had translated ref you will see that the original statement about Berlin having largest population in Europe was incorrect. regards --palmiped |  Talk  17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. But you should have mentioned that instead of just saying that the reference was not in English. —innotata 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it clearly says that the largest population on the continent—Britain is an island—is around Berlin. —innotata 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the welcome, but as sometimes happens it's just