User talk:ZooPro/Archive December 2010

This is an archive of past discussions with ZooPro. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey ZooPro, what happened to the WP:ZOO and WP:MAMMAL bulletin boards? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 19:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had them deleted as they became obsolete, I preferred just using the talk page to keep track of everything. ZooPro 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mind if I have them restored sometime in the future? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 15:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't bother me, I just never used them. ZooPro 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think you should give the Grant's gazelle article another look. I give it more citing. LittleJerry (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. ZooPro 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a good look, you have added some more sources and references, however it does not meet "B" class criteria just yet. It will need some expanding and additional content to qualify. ZooPro 12:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portal should be done in a week or so! :) The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. more information and sources have been added to the Eastern grey kangaroo article. It certainly now id more than a "start" article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Upgraded to a C. ZooPro 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The man was a "wanker"? Hahahaha I love the words that Australians apply to people like that…but Americans probably have funny ways of saying things too. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know the man personally though not by my own choice, he was trying to get our facility to buy some white lions off him. I was rather thrilled to hear he had been removed from his position. De-clawing is a very cruel practice, my facility has hands on contact with animals however would never dream of de-clawing. Sad world we live in if we have to mutilate an animal for entertainment. Australians use the term "wanker" to describe some who is a "Jerk, full of themselves, annoying, rude, arrogant, pushy or downright bad" the very opposite of "mate". ZooPro 01:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, ZooPro! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! The ArbiterTalk 02:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks man!TCO (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Cheers ZooPro 09:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed our GA just now, too.  ;)TCO (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PORTAL IS DONE!!!! The Arbiter^Talk 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think? The Arbiter^Talk 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He says he's going to be pretty busy through the new year, so you may not hear back right away. I like it. I have put it into our {{WikiProject Zoo}} template. I think we need some guidelines on where we put a portal link. Many projects put a link in the See also section or Notes/References section of articles. Do we do it only on articles about zoos (this would be my initial take) or on all articles that are "of interest" (in other words, they contain a {{WikiProject Zoo}} template on the talk page). Donlammers (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's an interesting point. :) Well, probably just the zoo articles, since the portal is primarily about zoos. Of course, there may already be guidelines in place for things like that...I'm just not sure where to find them. Cheers, The Arbiter^Talk 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might even consider chucking it in the Zoo Banner, should be listed on Zoo for sure. ZooPro 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already put it in the WikiProject Zoo template (lots of other projects have their portal link in the WP banner). I'm not sure exactly how it would fit into the Zoo navbox, but I can give that a shot too if you think it should be there. Donlammers (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i should have worded that better, I was just meaning a link in the "see also" section of the Zoo article. ZooPro 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! I am Belugaboy of the

I will have to look over them carefully, I am always very hesitant at awarding B classes as there are very specific criteria. Cheers ZooPro 09:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi got your message and thanks for your help. It has been really nice to get a little support on wikispecies. I do not edit there right now, I see no point under the current situation. I am happy to help them with their turtle pages but as its a set of pages that should be nomenclaturally correct I cannot party to what goes on there. I am however very keen to continue to develop the Wikipedia pages. The fellow in question has already made an edit to the Myuchelys page here which I modified. There was no need to apologise I knew you were away for xmas and did not expect a rapid reply. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• have sent you an email, cheers.. Faendalimas (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • replied to your email. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I feel that you are deliberately obstructing my efforts to give a NPOV on the Wollumbinia/Myuchelys debate, and I will take the matter further if you persist. Surely you realize that Faendalimas does not have a NPOV on this matter? You do know that he is Thomson, as in Myuchelys Thomson & Georges? Please move on from this, --Stho002 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen you dont have a neutral point of view and your comments are unpublished and unfounded. I have based this on published material not peronal opinion. Go and keep your act up at wikispecies, leave your politics out of wikipedia. Of course they all know who I am it says so on my page, I do not hide it. Faendalimas (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue with my actions to protect Wikipedia from harm and misinformation. If you have an issue with my edits please feel free to bring them to the attention of ANI. I am not concerned with who anyone is or isn't outside of Wikipedia, my concern is in regards to the five pillars and bettering the project. Kind Regards ZooPro 09:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and one of the five pillars is NPOV, which Faendalimas is not respecting. Are you going to warn him, or do I need to ask someone else to do it? --Stho002 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he has been notified of a potention COI. It also seems you two have come to a temporary agreement in regards to that article. ZooPro 06:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Arbiter^Talk 00:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have commented, seems to have grown from nothing to a huge issue, I think the user expected one of us to side with him, but in all honesty no one did anything wrong not even the user in question. ZooPro 06:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, no one did anything wrong, until he pursued the matter and demanded a huge apology for wasting his time with personal attacks, which of course I didn't do. The Arbiter^Talk 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the naming convention at WP:Naming conventions (fauna) and indeed read it before removing the speedy tag. That naming convention, in essence, says to use the common name unless there's reason not to. In this case the title you want to move it to is not the scientific name so I assume your reasoning is based on using the common name. I note that the convention says to use the common name and makes no reference to whether it's scientifically correct or not. It appears to me, based on the article and the sources therein, that there are multiple common names for this species and so it is unclear which one should be used. I accept that your argument that it's not a Dibbler may well be correct and so that may be a reason to move it, but given the number of common names that's not an uncontroversial move and needs to be discussed - especially when it has been stable at it's current name for so long. Dpmuk (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at the article and the number of "common" names given the species, I would suggest that the binomial may be the appropriate name to move to. Unless there are some discussions regarding the taxonomy that are not reflected in the article, the binomial is the name that is consistently applied and used by a lot of sources.-Kevmin § 18:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to the scientific name as this seems to be the best solution and seems to be within the spirit of the naming convention. However given that it's not actually specified in the convention I still think a requested move would be useful. Dpmuk (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that same thought we would have to move all the Antechinus articles to the scientific names, instead of moving one animal to its common name (by common i mean it is the preferred name in Australian Zoo's per

ZAA listings). ZooPro 09:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is which is the "Common" name and which are synonyms? The fact is the species has at least vernacular names that is is known by (per the lead sentence in the article). There has been discussion of adding a section to WP:Naming conventions (fauna) on making the scientific name a fallback default for cases where there are multiple "common" names. There was general agreement to the idea at that time. --Kevmin § 10:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZooPro. You have new messages at WP:Requests for permissions/Rollback.
Message added 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks but I still don't see why you need the Rollback feature and given recent edits I would be concerned it could be misused. ZooPro 01:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, question from another source... Exactly what does rollback do that I can't do with judicious undo? In fact, from the description it sounds like basically the ability to undo without looking at what you are undoing, which seems dangerous. Donlammers (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what it does = undo without looking, its faster when your fighting vandals but can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. It does nothing more special then undo just a lot faster and leaves its own edit summary. On an unrelated note thanks for that great zoo template in your user space has come in handy, in fact i made a blank version in my sandbox so i dont have to keep jumping over to your page. ZooPro 15:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd rather be editing articles than doing the level of vandal fighting that would require rollback. Glad to have been of help with my template. I go back to it all the time for pieces, even when I'm doing stub upgrades. Donlammers (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started keeping a list of defunct zoos. Some have articles, some are mentioned in articles, and some are mentioned in references that I find while researching other zoos. I'm thinking of making it a list with some descriptive text, which would let us give a brief description without having to create a whole separate article for a defunct zoo where information is scarce (I just hate losing information about things that were). You can see my starting list here. I guess I should have removed the request for Zoo Nebraska when I added it to this list. Donlammers (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to have a list of defunct zoos, yeah i agree waste of time creating articles on zoos that dont exist anymore (unless they are very notable). We have enough issues writting about the ones that are open. Im currently trying to create a few new australian zoo articles as to clear out all the red links in the "List of Australian Zoos". If yah need a hand with anything let me know. Cheers ZooPro 15:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add zoos to the list in my sandbox, or just send me a note. I'll try to put together at least a basic one sentence description of each zoo and create the article "some time soon". Donlammers (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly active anymore in the coaching scene, but I do think you have a good amount of potential ahead of you. All you really need is some more editing experience. I'm willing to open a few sessions with you. bibliomaniac15 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I've started a user subpage, User:ZooPro/Coaching, where this will take place. It's mostly Q&A sessions as well as "what would you do" type scenarios. bibliomaniac15 07:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I have answered ZooPro 10:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, ZooPro! :) The Arbiter^Talk 14:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ZooPro! I expanded an article (finally)! So, if you could reassess Bird Kingdom, that would be great...I don't think it'll ever be able to be expanded to a GA or FA, due to the lack of information or content, but I don't think it's a stub anymore. Cheers, The Arbiter^Talk 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! The Arbiter^Talk 21:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate, yeah i actually created a new article the other day and expanded a few, feels like a billion years since I have done that. I took a leaf out of Donlammers book and started bringing stubs up to start or c class. ZooPro 23:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we assess disambiguation pages? Do they actually get rated, or should they been in the N/A category like templates and such. We currently have one unassessed article ZOOM, which is a disambiguation page. Donlammers (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline or reason to rate a disambig page so they would fall under "na". Cheers ZooPro 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Donlammers (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I should probably mention, that brought the count of "zoo" articles up to 1000. Donlammers (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, you should get a barnstar or something for that. :P ZooPro 05:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. Donlammers (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some edits -- hopefully nothing offensive -- including defining "billabong" inline (this is an Australian word that a majority of English speakers are probably not familiar with). The link for the "The park breeds Koalas to send to other zoos in the Australasian breeding program" is currently broken and goes to a Japanese site. I tried searching the new ZAA Web site for "billabong koala", but found no mention of either the institution or the "Taxon Advisory Group Koalas." Then again, I don't have the access that you would -- there may be something in the members area.In any case, this needs a new citation. Personally, I would recommend consolidating the refs in the reflist (I added one there as I hate messing with all that junk inline). I can easily do the consolidation if you want. It's a lot easier to scan for duplicates and such when things are all in one place, but I don't mess with existing citations without asking because this seems to be a matter of religious conviction to some editors (either pro or con, depending on the editor). Donlammers (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha its all good mate, I trust you with what ever you think needs to be done to improve the article. Yes i forgot that the TAG groups are in the members section that requires a password, I may be able to find a way to have that unprotected. I am far from offended mate, its good to know someone is making sure my edits are correct and I am happy to admit I make mistakes. ZooPro 14:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]