User talk:Snowmanradio/Archive 10

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I am expecting to be busy for the next two to four weeks (approx). Snowman (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman: Good luck with whatever's on your plate at the minute! We'll miss all your hard work—you're doing an amazing job with all those photo uploads! See you in a few weeks... MeegsC | Talk 10:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Snowman (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman: I notice you tagged this list with an orphan tag last August, and I'm wondering why. (I'm working through some of the things on the latest cleanup listing this afternoon.) It's linked to as many other articles as any of our other lists are! Can you shed some light? Do you think we should have other ways to direct people to such lists? MeegsC | Talk 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it seems to be linked to some pages; allbeit, to other lists. I have removed the banner. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. MeegsC | Talk 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvements to the article. It is rather confusing as to when to use "Barrow", and when to use "Barrow-in-Furness", and I spent some time wondering what the best course of action would be. However, Vickers' facility is generally known as the "Barrow works" which is the way I referred to it in the lead; and then when named within a quote, I left it in it's original form. I used "Barrow-in-Furness" at the first subsequent opportunity and then "Barrow" afterwards for simplicity, and because that is the common or everyday use form. I think the original photo description just mentioned "Barrow" as well, but that is neither here nor there IMHO. --Red Sunset 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I messed it up? I have rephrased it like saying Whitley plant in Whitley, giving Barrow works and Barrow-in-Furness a mention in the introduction as two separate places because both are mentioned later. I think that is logical, but it is only a suggestion, and I will follow your recommendation. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not messed up. Think of how you would refer to Royal Leamington Spa and Stratford-upon-Avon – most people would simply say "Leamington" or "Stratford". I thought the town's name should be mentioned in full at the first instance, and then the familiar term thereafter. BTW, I particularly like the rearrangement and renaming of the last section. :-) --Red Sunset 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, most readers are not locals. For simplicity I used the name as used for the wikipage of the town, except in the quotes where Barrow might refer to the works rather than the town. I usually see the word "Aftermath" as negative. Snowman (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia went read-only *(server crash I guess) so I am posting both to my talk and yours I hope not duplicating too much but in case it got lost.:

I did another couple of good long edits today. Keeps me busy. Every time I think of updating my user page I get confounded in an article and start editing it, and can be absorbed in it for hours. I am one of those that tends to make lots of small edits (though also some large ones) so there is a huge stream of edits. Ik now there are sandboxes etc but it is on purpose, each stands alone and then anyone can contest any particular one rather than just some massive edit. If you have any hints or help for setting up a user page I should be grateful. I can work it out for myself but it might be an easy short-cut if you could give me some hints.

I tried to post this before but failed. There are still technical workings of Wiki that elude me. The subbing is good fun and, I hope, valuable to others; I enjoy it.

I am guessing you will find this here.

SimonTrew (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, and look at others users pages to see what sort of things people write about them selves. It is not a home page. It belongs to the wiki, so that both readers and editors can know a little about editors. Generally, people do not put may specific identifying details. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thick-billed parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nice image. Although neither the new picture or the existing taxobox shows a particularly natural setting, gardens are in fact the best breeding habitat, so that's not a problem. More to the point, looking at the taxobox image I realised that it had some brown in the wings, and is not in fact a full adult male. I've put the new image into the taxobox and moved the old one into the text to show a plumage not previously depicted. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is something like you have to pay if more than six bars, or 10 seconds, or something like that-- it is very short. Do you want me to try to track it down? SimonTrew (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to pay anything. What are you refering too? Snowman (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear have I gone wrong again? I thought you were having a discussion about the

Performing Rights Society. Please excuse me I have not got used to the wikipedia etiquette for where I should put talk. BTW I didn't find it, I have sent them a request for information. SimonTrew (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps your were discussing this with another user. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could discuss changes first on the talk page? Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia.

May I refer you to

WP:OWN. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am certainly not telling you not to edit the article, but just asking if you could discuss changes first on the article talk page?

talk

)

Above copied to talk page where discussion can be continued. Snowman (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Eos (genus), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very grateful if you kept a special eye out for any pictures of

At present, birdwatch.ph/ is reviewing the taxonomy and nomenclature of Philippine avifauna. We are doing this, myself, and a couple of others for the country Records Committee, of which I am a member, of Wild Bird Club of the Philippines. This time around, the review is taking quite a long time because there are so many taxonomic changes to be considered, especially after the publication of the Timaliidae section in HBW-12 with Collar's rearrangement, among others. Part of this is deciding if we (for WBC) will adopt the IOC indications, or not. We are still discussing.--Steve Pryor (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked on the Warwickshire talk page and saw your list of red linked articles. I have already though of this problem. Add all the red liked articles you find to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warwickshire/uncreatedarticles. Could you also please rasie attention to this page as it could be quite helpful for people who want to create Warwickshire related articles and those who don't want to create the articles but just want to list them somewhere helpful. De Mattia (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My brain isn't working too well today, plus I know nothing about bird taxonomy. If the article is describing the author's observations and conclusions, then I would say it is a primary source. In other areas, such as geology, I am wary of editors defining a name for a geological area that is not part of a common consensus in the academic/scientific area. This risks making some terminology look official when in reality it is arbitrary. The astronomy people may be good editors to ask. They frequently come up with newly identified bodies, but they seem to have a system for determining whether a finding is significant. I am sure that it does not depend on one researcher's finding. Sorry I can't be of more help, but my brain is on "Stop" at the moment! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is wise. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, the change of location from Camiguin Sur to Cebu, does not constitute a problem. Race jagori ranges throughout most of the Philippine Arch., exception for northern Luzon, where the race is formosana. So, same race in Cebu.--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will start the process of renaming them. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, why change all the irises to irides as the first os perfectly valid: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iris ???? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same question. WHY? I would hazard a guess that far more people are familiar with irises as the plural of iris. Please explain how this change to the use of a word many will not understand will help Wikipedia impart information to the masses. --LiamE (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when changing the spelling of a word you need to keep its capitalisation in tact. --LiamE (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just the technician and it was not my idea; please contribute to the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Trichoglossus. I would be happy to change it back. Please use your dictionary as a source for the alternative spelling of the pleural on the iris (anatomy) wiki page. I have changed them back. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added a non-free but presumed fair use tag. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so quick on

I know the dilemma - to remind an editor before they go of, or to wait for them to write it down. The wiki or the connection is a bit slow here tonight, actually. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know that I have completed a Good Article review of Philip Larkin and have left some comments on the talk page if you are interested?. --Kateshortforbob 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman - your points re MOS seem judicious. Would you be interested in having a crack at implementing the relevant changes? I think my role in this article is more as a provider of content, as I know a fair amount about Larkin and have access to many of the relevant books, but the fine detail of WP style and formatting is best left to an expert such as yourself. Macphysto (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With MOS, I am not an expert and I only have a smattering. Can you further the discussion on the articles Good Article review regarding MOS? Snowman (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowmanradio,

Thank you for your efforts on Philip Larkin. I wanted to let you know that having re-read the article, I think it meets the good article criteria, and have now passed it. Congratulations! --Kateshortforbob 23:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable contributions to this article, which I nominated for GA status - something you were clearly instrumental in achieving. Macphysto (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind regards. I think User Kateshortforbob wrote a good review, which triggered the changes that bashed the article into shape. I will continue watching the page while User Macphysto is away. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you had a copy of the book whose page you retitled to hand before you made this change? almost-instinct 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is on this website. Also by this [http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/ tool[. Snowman (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and on this source it is, as always, capitalised.... almost-instinct 00:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE provide a source for your claim that the capitalisation is incorrect almost-instinct 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the publisher's page: [1] CAPITALISED. Will you please stop and THINK. almost-instinct 00:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The isbn tool and the WHSmith site indicates a lower case format. Anyway, if the publishers page gives a certain capitalization, then that can be used. Snowman (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about?! From the WHSmith page: "Philip Larkin's Oxford Book of Twentieth-Century English Verse provoked controversy". When you're in a hole stop digging. Just undo your rubbish and leave these poor pages alone. almost-instinct 01:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS section you should have bothered to find is this: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Capitalization. In future, why not find out about a subject before charging in? Did it not occur to you that the person who created the page might have known more about it than you? Why didn't you raise the issue on the talk page? You repeated your error on the Larkin page without pausing to examine if I might have had a reason for correcting you. Your ignorant arrogance just wastes time. almost-instinct 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman: I notice the updated name of one of the recent files you uploaded is "File:Brotogeris species -south Columbia -in tree-8.jpg". The country name should be spelled Colombia (with an o rather than a u); would you mind asking for a name change? Thanks for all your continued hard work in the photo-upload department! MeegsC | Talk 09:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Rename under way to [[:File:Brotogeris species -south Colombia -in tree-8.jpg]]. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified above here. Yes I know I managed to misspell identification! Species is very common near Leticia. • Rabo³ • 05:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question: Has the copyright notice been changed? Right now it and all other photos (e.g. [2]) by this person are noncommercial, which from what I can understand is incompatible with wiki. Somehow managed to miss the note about this user having changed the license. • Rabo³ • 05:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the flickr semi-automated upload-to-commons software that I used to upload this image will not upload an image from flickr to commons with a licence that is not suitable for commons. The bot automatically adds the template to show that the licence on flickr was suitable. The evidence is all in the file history. I expect that the automated software has a log somewhere. Occasionally I find the change of licence template is useful. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File rename under way to File:Brotogeris versicolurus -Leticia -Colombia-6.jpg. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel you should have a read through

• If you have the time and ability to find an authoritative reference, please do so. Then add the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them.

If you have the time to be going around as you are tag happy, then you have the time to find a reference, its not that hard.

• Many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously.

I have bolded the statement at the end.. take note!

• This template is intended for specific passages which need citation. For articles or sections which have significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{Unreferenced}}.

Perhaps you should bear that in mind

Talk 15:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that there is a better way to say that. I think that your edit summaries could be more civil. Please respect my mini-review and I have followed wiki guidelines in adding cn tags intended to inspire improvements and maintain wiki standards. The template that you quote says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately". Snowman (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please to not return any biographical information to the Leamington Spa page again without references, as you did in this edit. Snowman (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete unsourced biographical information from the Leamington Spa page again, without allowing adequate time for editors to find references, as you did in this edit, unless it is regarding a living person, as is clearly stated in

Talk 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note that anyone can delete any unreferenced material at any time, and what I deleted is not common knowledge. Snowman (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can do a lot of things, much of which is stupid and disruptive, one of the side effects of MediaWiki. Perhaps have a read of

Talk 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I note that you have added unreferenced material back to the page, much of which remains unreferenced. I hope that this does not mislead any readers. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Leamington Spa article does need a cleanup, but I agree, adding references rather than removing content is the way forward, and is just as easy. Widefox (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, I was doing a mini-review and not a rewrite of the page. Sometimes, an outsider can review a page better than the main editors of the page. Snowman (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are all in an equal position to edit pages. Widefox (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different ways to improve an article and different skills are needed in a collaboration to make a good page. Snowman (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow,

No, not yet. I have just been out of town the last few days, and away from my birding-dedicated home PC. That PC has my obscenely large avian photodatabase, ca. 500,000 photos of almost 9,700 species. I use it extensively to confirm my own initial identifications (from my books). I am capable of on-sight identification of about half of the world's birds without books, but I am very meticulous and so would rather use my database when doing ID's for the Wiki.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice time. I will look at my parrot books extra carefully while you are away. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the discussion and merged. I know you have opposes this until now, but we have reached consensus on the article (edit consensus) and all these arguments are not progressing after 1 year, all as per discussion and edit summaries. Even the article name is questionable, considering there is no address Sydenham, Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think that 3 to 2 is a consensus, and I will inform what you have done to an administrator, who is interested in Warwickshire. I think that, at least, the merge discussion should have been closed by an uninvolved administrator as indicated on Help:Merging and moving pages. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the link I left about consensus by editing. When you removed the merge tag without warning or closing the discussion (and left the other 1/2 of the merge tag on Leamington)[3], it was really time to properly close this after 1 year without notability reached, and a last attempt at advancing the article. Widefox (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I appropriately removed the merge templates from both pages on 16 May 2009, with this edit from the Sydenham page and this edit to the Leamington page. The previous contribution to the discussion on the proposed merge was on 18 February when the discussion had reached 3 to 2 as seen. I will be informing what you have done to the administrator who in interested in Warwickshire. He is on holiday at present and I will inform him on his return. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean above - you have not provided an edit link of Leamington Spa. You did not edit it on the 16th, and by the 20th it was still there [4]. I repeat, you left the tag there and I removed it today. In any case, removing the tags before closing the discussion is not appropriate. Widefox (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appropriately removed the merge template on 16 May 2009 with this edit from the Sydenham page, and I guess because of an oversight I was accidentally logged out when I removed the merge banner from the Leamington page with this edit about three mins earlier. The previous contribution to the discussion on the Sydenham talk page on the proposed merge was on 18 February 2009 when the discussion had reached 3 to 2 as seen. I feel that an uninvolved administrator should have closed the page because of the the discussion on the merge that occured after 16 May 2009. Anyway, I will be informing what you have done to the administrator who in interested in Warwickshire. He is on holiday at present and I will inform him on his return. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was certainly reached in that discussion. Remember that it is not a vote. No suitable arguments were given from the "keep" side.

Talk 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I would much prefer if this decision was made by an independent administrator as is recommended in the wiki guidelines for a controversial merge. I think that the discussion after 16 May 2009 indicates that the merge is controversial. Snowman (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree that it could be argued that consensus in the discussion was reached too. There was no plausible reason advanced, and no attempt made in 1 year to advance notability. That is an exceptionally long time. Additionally, this edit [[5] to recreate the link under a different name (and against disambig style) is not appropriate. And the edit you have claimed as your own incorrectly removed 2 merge tags from two articles in merge discussion [6] and was correctly immediately reverted by another editor [7] and can be considered vandalism. Widefox (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion continued on "Sydenham, Warwickshire" talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_merged_page. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of tags

Your recent edit removed content from

• Discussion continued on "Sydenham, Warwickshire" talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_merged_page. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note, that posting these discussions on the article talk page might lead to some confusion there - my use of "you" refers to Snowman Widefox (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I have notified the admin page of what I consider disruptive editing - canvassing (Forum shopping), POV forking, inappropriate removal of merge banners on several articles, reopening of an archived admin discussion, and now attempts to recreate a merged article under a new name [8]. Please could you stop canvassing. Widefox (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of my edits are made with the intention of improving the wiki. Snowman (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take back my accusations, sorry. Widefox (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow missed

I will be interested in the results. It would be best to explain that you have some material that they can use as references to make a map. I have asked them to do some simple work in the past, but I found that I could do better myself. Perhaps, they have improved now. I have recently made two simple maps for the ranges of the "Short-billed Black Cockatoo" and the "Long-billed Black Cockatoo". I do not want to take on making map ranges for the Australian Magpie, which I do not know much about and looks quite complicated. Snowman (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very tricky as there are now eight subspecies on mainland australia and some range overlaps, so will need someone skilled in graphics. I am quite proud of how this article has turned out and the map is the last (or second last) thing. One final thing would be some sounds as they make the most marvellous noises, they sit around on top of telegraph poles in the neighbourhood warbling away to themselves, but I have no sound recording equipment nor know where to look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these suggestions are essential: It might be useful to have a photograph of eggs in a nest (or eggs) and a photograph of a juvenile from head to toe. I like the photograph of the upper body of the juvenile. Perhaps, User:Aviceda can make a video with sound. Personally speaking, I think that a table to summarise the subspecies with photographs would be a good way to present the information. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has merit, although many subspecies are very similar and we don't have photographs for all of them, which leaves some holes. I am also waiting until

Macaroni Penguin gets some more input too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am proud that these two articles show images that I brought to commons from flickr, with help from many contributors who assist in identification. Actually, there are relatively few photographs of penguins swimming underwater. I went through a phase of being interesting in penguins, but someone deleted a page containing an organised gallery that I was working on to form into a list, and then I worked on other bird species. It was probably right for this gallery to be removed, except I was working on it changing it into a list. Anyway, I transferred the organised gallery to commons. Sometimes, I think that the balance favours deletionists too much. I think that voting for an article for deletion should at least have a majority of 2 to 1 to be actioned. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent and update) one of the map folk has made a really good map now for

Regarding Alice Roberts – like you, I am only trying to improve the page – and I may not always be right. I'll try to edit it for style and punctuation, and the few facts I know about Dr Roberts. You clearly know her a lot better than I, and I'm sure that your information will improve the article. I always try not to step on other editors' toes, but sometimes it's unavoidable and we have to compromise. I'm sure you do the same. Regards, Agendum (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you have looked up the additions that you have made, but please remember that all information on a living persons article should be sourced with reliable in-line references. Snowman (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a source for them, of course – I'll attempt to do the citation tomorrow. Cheers Agendum (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and that should reduce the number of errors that you have, perhaps unwittingly, brought to the article, when you were making the language look professional. Snowman (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Certainly unwittingly – I'm only trying to help. Your tone suggests that you regard this article as your own pet project – in which case, I think I'll move on and leave you to it. Cheers! Agendum (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and that should reduce the number of errors that you have unwittingly brought to the article, when you were making the language look professional. This is based on a few observations, and is meant to be a constructive comment to help you with your editing on this page. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rudeness is unbelievable. Collaborative projects like Wikipedia rely upon mutual respect, support and recognition of each other's strengths beween participants, and editors are expected to be able to work together and co-operate with each other so as to achieve the common goal of building an online encyclopedia.

Your attitude of appearing to regard this article as “yours” and your condescending approach to other editors indicate an inability to understand the true nature of collaboration.

The so-called errors you have referred to on a number of times have been the result of my attempts to improve what was a poorly-written, limited and incomplete stub-class article, and bring to it greater accuracy and more serious and professional writing, as befits the nature of the article.

If I may venture to add an opinion – the article is now far better written than before I began work on it. But I now have no more patience left, with you or your article. Adieu! – Agendum (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the collaboration in the biography in question has improved the page, and I accept that the text that a user adds to the wiki is likely to be worked and reworked. I do not see the article as being mine and I see that other editors have amended the page and one user has done a careful copy edit and improved the wording. I noticed a few errors (including adding what looked like unreferenced material) that you accidentally made on this biography page, and as a Veteran Editor IV, I amended the article and brought this to your attention. I also pointed out and removed some vile vandalism on your user page, which you did not notice for months. I have politely explained on the article talk page that she is primarily an anatomist and not an anthropologist, and you are welcome to explain on the articles talk page why you indicated that she is primarily an anthropologist in the introduction. I am sorry that you have interpreted my attempts to guide you through some wiki lore as rudeness. Snowman (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that a recent editor has amended a line in the article with the edit summary, "Rm unsourced POV". Perhaps you might like to ask this user why he amended your edit. See your edit here, and the next edit which amended your edit here. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you used a wiki tool to find red linked articles on this page. Could you please tell me more about this 'tool'. De Mattia (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look for it, but I can not find it again. I am not even sure if it is still available. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for edits, I've repeated the Hayman ref for Senegal jimfbleak (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a GA review in progress, your edits are actually likely to cause confusion. If you think improvements are necessary or desirable, please add comments on the GA review page, which you can access via the article's Talk page. Jim (editor) and I (reviewer) have put a lot of work into this, and I do not intend to recheck the entire article because of undiscussed edits in the middle of the review. --Philcha (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had responded User Jimfbleak's message on the Bird talk page for assistance. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I notice that this edit is new material but unsupported by a ref - i.e. violates

Well, I would not call it original research as the calorific values of various metabolised substances are very well studied indeed. Anyway, I see it as "common knowledge" that was not in an inline ref, so I have opted to revert the edit of mine that you refer to. Snowman (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue discussion on article talk page, where I have copied above. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i don't want to fill up FA review page too much with content disputes. I am not sure I like it being two seperate sections, one for "alcohol detoxification" and "alcohol withdrawal syndrome". how about we just merge them but leave the section title as "alcohol detoxification"? The lay reader and perhaps even some professionals will read it as it is and think, "huh"? I do agree with all of your other recommendations and suggestions though. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute, but there is a discussion. Thanks for mentioning that. Having just seen how it looks on the page for the first time, I think I agree. Incidentally, please do not mention negative concepts like "dispute" and earlier "complaint" unnecessarily, as sometimes this can lead to a downward spiral. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am terrible with my use of words on wikipedia. :) I think I pick them up from reading these wiki policies and it translates into my wikipedia online vocabulary. It does me no favours and may explain some of my fallouts with people on wiki (thinking back). :) Thank you for merging the two sections.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only other issue to be resolved now is the multiple citations in one reference. I don't know how to do that. Can you help? If there are no other issues are you able to support the article going to FA or is there more work to be done?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One or two sections have been worked over out a bit more, but there are all the other sections to tidy up too. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look forward to your suggestions. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You posted a message on my talk page a couple weeks back asking about my rosella photo. It was taken near Gloucester, NSW. Thanks --liquidGhoul (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, which I have added to the image description on commons. See File:Crimson Rosella2.jpg. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very common in the area. I think this one is a juvenile because of the green on his/her back. But not too sure, I'm a frog man! --liquidGhoul (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Moluccan King Parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Royalbroil 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article king parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Papuan King Parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Gatoclass 02:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You made an edit with the summary The tree of life page says that a photograph is preferable to an illustration in the infobox, where does it state that preference? cygnis insignis 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Image_Guidelines on the talk page it says "For living creatures, use a photo, unless the only photos available are poor quality (such as one taken from too far away). In that case, an illustration would suffice, provided it is (for the most part) anatomically correct." Snowman (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for clarifying the source of that opinion, I am relieved. The current image is more informative than the previous files, IMO, but a freely available image would be preferred. COI prevents me offering another file, and I think that the notability, and superiority, of a scientific illustration, such as Bauer's or Gould's, could be established with a reliable source. While my contribution did not match this ideal, the link in my caption went some way to establishing the reason for selecting it over a series of opinions.cygnis insignis 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also consider a image's licence when deciding on images. I sometimes swap in images with a better licence. What COI do you have? Snowman (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked :) I thought this was a lucky shot, a couple of users at commons agreed and stamped it 'quality image'. Capturing two birds revealed more details, capturing three revealed all; compare the clean background with the others in the gallery at the sister site. It works as a thumb, and is good enough to zoom into. I might be able to find an image of a single specimen on the roll, but I'm not strongly motivated to do so. Another contributor produced File:Rainbowlori.jpg, but, like mine, I was unable to crop it without making it visually confusing. Not a problem with the Bauer bird illustration, he also neatly shows the underside and behaviour. They can serve a different purpose if we have a choice; a photo would be a useful way of illustrating a specimen from a particular group, scientific illustrations show a taxon 'in an idealised way'. This is why authors and publishers still go to the effort and expense of commissioning them. I usually prefer to refer to secondary sources, rather than champion my own preference, and I can probably do that with Bauer's image. cygnis insignis 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is slightly tangenical to the FAC, so I am taking this to the talk page where we won't further derail the process. Said you ...The ref is needed because it is not clear where that claim came from. It is standard and polite to add a cn tag where a ref is needed. I wanted the ref because the line seems odd to me and I have added another problem about it below. and "if something is cited on the next sentence it is unnecessary to cite twice"; where does this come form? For the text in question there are two references at the end of the next sentence and another two references at the end of the sentence after that one

"if something is cited on the next sentence it is unnecessary to cite twice" -here is an extreme example from say Painted berrypecker

• The plumage of both species is soft, downy and brightly coloured. In both species the backs and wings are green and the tail is blue-grey. In the Tit Berrypecker the plumage is sexually dimorphic, with the male having bright yellow patches on the face, wing and chest but the female being overall duller. Both sexes of the Crested Berrypecker are similar, but the species exhibits instead some variation between two subspecies. The plumages of the juveniles resemble the female in the case of the Tit Berrypecker and dull adults in the case of the Crested Berryecker. The Crested Berrypecker has, as suggested by the name, an erectile crest. Both species have unique filoplumes (hairlike feathers) on the flanks that are not visible in the field and the function of which is unknown.^[1]

The ref, at the end of the paragraph, covers the whole of the paragraph. This family is very poorly knopwn, and there is as yet only a single ref for the family. It be redundant and look dumb to present it like this

• The plumage of both species is soft, downy and brightly coloured.^[1] In both species the backs and wings are green and the tail is blue-grey.^[1] In the Tit Berrypecker the plumage is sexually dimorphic, with the male having bright yellow patches on the face, wing and chest but the female being overall duller.^[1] Both sexes of the Crested Berrypecker are similar, but the species exhibits instead some variation between two subspecies.^[1] The plumages of the juveniles resemble the female in the case of the Tit Berrypecker and dull adults in the case of the Crested Berryecker.^[1] The Crested Berrypecker has, as suggested by the name, an erectile crest. Both species have unique filoplumes (hairlike feathers) on the flanks that are not visible in the field and the function of which is unknown.^[1]

The point is that there is no need to have a ref on every single sentence. A cluster of related sentences can all be covered by one ref. This is a well established usage here on Wikipedia, and I have never seen the principal contended. There are situations obviously, when it isn't super clear whether the ref applies to the sentence, and I concede that this may apply in the situation on Ruff. This is where the politeness point comes in.

To editors who spend a lot of time writing articles for GAC and FAC, slapping in a CN tag without checking is annoying. Sometimes very annoying, more so when no effort is made to see if the reference at the very end of the next sentence is the citation required. It smacks of lazy reviewing, which is toxic because the nominator has to run around attending to the whims of reviewers to get the work done. It makes nominators angry (as I mentioned in my RFA). So, in reply to your It is standard and polite to add a cn tag where a ref is needed., I would suggest that it may be standard but it is not polite. In a situation where it is not clear whether the article is being actively maintained or improved by a particular editor the tags are useful to attract attention to dubious claims. When an editor is improving or nominating an article, and it is clear that the editor will respond quickly to comments (which all the WP:BIRD editors who nominate FAs do) it would be nicer to simply draw the bit you're uncertain about to the nominators attention in the review and ask. The nominator can then either provide assurances that the ref covers it (and possibly make that clearer) or provide a citation if they have overlooked it. This is not mandated by any guideline or policy, it is simply being respectful of the editors who go through a stressful procedure (and believe me I'd rather go through ten RFAs over another FAC). Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question had multiple different tags in the paragraph, and where it was impossible to tell where one unsourced and odd sentence came from. I expect that you are trying to be helpful, but you have not told me anything that I did not already know about cn tags. I think that you have underestimated the care with which I add tags. It may help you to know that I thought about adding the cn tag in question for some time, and I read the paragraph over and over again. The paragraph was ambiguous and I could not work out where one sentence had come from, so I could not correct it myself from the source. I request that you withdraw your comment that uses the expression "slapping in a CN tag". There are a host of tags, including cn tags, that are intended to bring problems to attention in a quick and simple acceptable fashion. Perhaps different editors my perceive the intention behind adding cn tags differently, and a user may be motivated in a variety of ways to add a cn tag, but I suggest that in the vast majority of cases the placement and then the interpretation of a cn tag is not as negative as you suggest. A user who is working on the page and familiar with the content would not have much difficulty on sorting out one cn tag and I think that your concern about a users stress levels in this case are largely undue. Snowman (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of what you have said about your reviewing style, I shall add an addendum. There is a danger in doing things right if what you do is indistinguishable from doing wrong. As in, if you behave honourably (carefully sorting through the article and finding the bits that don't add up) and somehow manage to tag in a way that looks like an indiscriminate tagger, you'll raise hackles. You say that you don't tag indiscriminately, and I am happy to accept that. I have never considered you indiscriminate, and I'm sorry if that impression has come across. What I have said above was in part an effort to get you to edit in a way that that didn't come across in that way. By approaching this more carefully, you'll avoid edit summaries like this one [9]. And I assure you I am not the only FA editor that feels this way, and that the FAC is a very stressful procedure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main editor of the page has been grateful for my edits to the page and have I received appreciation for a previous cn tag I added to this article during the GA review; see above. This seems to be in complete contradiction to your comments. Snowman (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]