User talk:Animalparty/Archive 1

Sparassodonta

Although I'm currently busy with other article, do you want help to improve the article of Sparassodonta? --Rextron (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I definitely want to improve it. I'm busy with work and other things as well, but intend to compile some recent literature as soon as I can and at the very least flesh out the equivocal nature of the classification. Animalparty (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if I have some papers relevant for the article.--Rextron (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Animalparty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And a personal welcome

How did you manage to have an account for several years with no edits? Nevermind that, welcome to the editing side of the project.

Have you considered contributing at Wikispecies? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Davidwr, when I saw Animalparty editing the Mating article on November 16th (Wikipedia time; was actually the 15th for me), and checked to see how experienced Animalparty is as a Wikipedia editor soon afterward, I concluded that he or she is not new to editing Wikipedia; the vast majority of new Wikipedia editors don't know how to edit this site with the experience that Animalparty showcased in his or her initial edits or currently shows. If they do edit with such experience, it's usually because they previously edited as a registered account, solely as an IP address, or got that experience from being trained via the WP:Education program. I considered commenting on this on the 16th, but, seeing Animalparty at the Mating article today, I decided to go ahead and comment on it today.

Either way, you are doing good work at this site, Animalparty. Not that you need me or anyone else to tell you that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Davidwr and Flyer22. I don't have plans currently to further develop the article, but it definitely needs expansion and internal cohesiveness. I'll be keeping an eye on it. The To-do list in the Talk:Mating page looks like a good start. And to answer your question, Davidwr, I registered years ago, completely forgot about it, but only recently came back to the editing/creating side. Glad to be here. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories for Monogenea

Hi. I have seen that you looked at some recent pages on Monogenea. There is a main problem with this group: the name of the group is Monogenea (right), the main page in Wikipedia and Wikispecies and Wikimedia is Monogenea (right), but the category is Monogenoidea (wrong). I have posted a comment about that on the talk page in May 2013. Could an administrator rename the category Monogenoidea into 'Monogenea, once for all? Then we will be able to make subcategories. Thank you Jeanloujustine (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming now requested via the "official" way. Jeanloujustine (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nankangia

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!--LT910001 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Animalparty. You have new messages at Talk:Antenna (biology).
Message added 14:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Plant anatomy

You added a ref improve tag to the Plant anatomy article. While I agree that almost every article in the Wikipedia could stand improvement in citing sources, the Plant anatomy article is well sourced. As a summary and navigational article, most of the sources are contained in the links, and it is not necessary to import them. For example, while the section on the history of plant anatomy does not have any footnotes, it is summary in nature and supportive sources are contained in the linked article about each person. Other things are cited inline. Please could you identify what exactly you see as needing citation? The best way would be to use the citation needed template and mark them in the article. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a couple more references to the article, as well as some more wikilinks and a redirect to History of botany which gives more details for the interested reader. As such I'm satisfied with the summary structure and have removed the Ref improve tag. Hope you like the new images too!--Animalparty-- (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Tom Clancy's Op Center (1995)...

Dear Animalparty: received an email that you reviewed this article, but cannot find your assessment on its talk page or any comments on the Assessment Request page. Without them, there's no proof that it was assessed. Could you please clarify? Cheers, Shir-El too 07:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I encountered the article on Special:NewPagesFeed, and reviewed it using Wikipedia:Page Curation. Marking it as reviewed simply denotes to others that the newly created article has been evaluated by at least one experienced user, and gives a chance to address any serious flaws (e.g. copyright violations, attack articles, hoaxes, etc.) right off the bat. The proof of review is in the Page Info button on the Curation Toolbar, along with a green checkmark signifying the article has been reviewed, but a review is not the same as a Quality assessment. I added a few elements to the article during reviewing but chose not to add any comments to the talk page. I hope this clears things up. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Asian mussel article!

Hello Animalparty, I wanted to say thank you so much for the very nice article on the Asian mussel. The article is a very welcome addition to WikiProject Bivalves. I fixed it up a little bit and decided it deserves a B rating. I would also like to invite you to join the bivalves project. Sad to say there is something wrong with my internet connection right now, but I will be sending you an invitation soon I hope. Invertzoo (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! although I didn't do much more than add some common names and a redirect. Credit goes to many more people beyond me! I don't know much about bivalves in particular but as a zoological generalist I like to add or improve content wherever I can.--Animalparty-- (talk)

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Bivalves; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Bivalves. If you would like more information please visit the project page.

Well in any case, thank you for your help! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Animalparty. You have new messages at Talk:Houndfish.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Anastasia (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How to check links?

Thanks for reviewing Apsethus the Libyan. How I can check the amount of wikilinks, about single specific page? OccultZone (Talk) 07:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't place the wikilinks tag, but there are only three topics linked in the article, as indicated by the blue links. I think the bigger problem is the lack of context (see MOS:INTRO). When did he live? Where? Why is he worthy of having an article about him? You need to provide notability and context, or else the article might be deleted or merged.--Animalparty-- (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lived around 2nd Century AD. Added ref. Source seems to be accurate, it cites 222 AD to be before Hippolytus's death. Because Hippolytus died in 235. OccultZone (Talk) 05:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters

Hello. Thank you so much for using VisualEditor. Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters…" tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

The "insert" pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the '⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽' tool.

This is the ⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽ inserter as it appears on many wikis. (Some may have customized it.) Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.

Issues you might consider:

• Do you normally use a character inserter? Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes.

Please leave your views on the MediaWiki feedback page (your regular username/password works there), or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ocepeia

The DYK project (nominate) 16:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Borderline life

Hello. I noticed you are a biologist. I wonder if you could weigh in/advice/fix/delete/rename the "Category:Borderline life". It hurts my head to see someone in Wikipedia state that oligonucleotides, polipeptides, etc may be alive. Thank you for your time. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of Santa Cruz Shakespeare

Hi, I just got a notification that you reviewed Santa Cruz Shakespeare. I've never seen that before. Is this part of a vetting process for new articles? Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@GentlemanGhost:Hi! I'm not sure how new it is, but yes, it's a way to review and vet articles that are created directly (e.g. not through WP:AFC). You can see more at Special:NewPagesFeed. As an aside, in this case I'm familiar with Shakespeare Santa Cruz, but didn't know about the rename. News to me!--Animalparty-- (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't create many articles from scratch, so I guess I've just never received a notification before. I debated about putting all the info in the original SSC article, but ultimately decided that with the name change AND the organizational change, it warranted a fresh article. I have no ownership hangups about that, though, so if the consensus is to merge it back into Shakespeare Santa Cruz, I'm OK with that. But yes, they have changed the name. Apparently they were able to negotiate staying in the Glen, but not keeping the old name. If I had to choose between the two, I'm glad that they were able to keep using the Glen. Although, really, what was UCSC going to do with it otherwise? You can only stage so many Kenny Loggins concerts. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Call for comments

Hello Animalparty, thank you again for your edits on DD_index.

If you have some spare moments, please have a look at the two Afd discussions on : (1) afd List of dictatorships (2) afd List of modern dictators in Latin America. Note that List of dictatorships and List of modern dictators in Latin America used DD_index as a source. I created the maps and sortable tables as part of my submissions to Wikimania 2014 using country codes: A data curation hub for students, journalists and writers: Country data reuse and coordination. Your comments on any of the above are welcome and appreciated. Thanks.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 15:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Siphoniulus

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Bradford (rock musician) notability tag.

Hi, in my article: Chris Bradford (rock musician), I've added lots of references throughout it, but I notice you've added a notability tag.

I checked the notability article - Wikipedia:Notability (music)

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria...

I'm certain that my article meets the following THREE criteria at least -

2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.[note 4]
5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.

As I mentioned, I think my article meets the criteria, so would you object to me removing the notability tag?

If you do object, can you recommend a way for me to address the shortfall?

Thanks.

Billy900 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Billy900: Many of my comments below apply to this article, and the independent notability of both Bardot (folk-rock band) and The Heroes (band) is not sufficiently demonstrated. The references of Chris Bradford (rock musician) fall into two categories, primary sources (e.g. track listings, album credits) and self-published websites by those other than Bradford. Self-published sources are heavily discouraged per policy: WP:BLPSPS. At least one album by both of Bradford's bands is apparently on a major record label, which may satisfy #5 above. A question:Which of Bradford's single or albums has charted? Bradford may be conceivably notable per a single criteria of WP:ARTIST ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") but see the general notability guidelines of WP:Notability (people). The information on Bradford's early years appears entirely unsourced. If verifiable, include references; unverifiable content should be removed. The best way to address all of these issues (and to write a better article, adhering to Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies), is to use reliable, secondary sources, such as news articles or other material, rather than construct a narrative from piecemeal raw data and self-published sources of questionable reliability, and do not create original research. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response Animalparty. I am in two minds at to how to proceed now: I don't think I can demonstrate notability to any greater degree than I have already done. What is the proper procedure at this point? To leave it with the notability challenge, in case future (more resourceful) editors can fix it, or remove the article? I'd appreciate your views. I have enjoyed the exercise of creating these articles, but find I'm a little bit out of my depth with regard to completing the project to the standards required.

Cheers, --Billy900 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability tag for Bardot (folk-rock band)

Hi Animalparty,

I have added further citations to the article for Bardot (folk-rock band) to emphasize the strong background of the individual members: i.e. guitarist with The Sweet, solo single on major label, work with Boney M and Cliff Richard among others. The band had a major record label deal (RCA), an album and three singles released all produced by a leading producer - Pip Williams (Status Quo, Moody Blues, Shirley Bassey, Dr. Feelgood etc).

I have cited sources for all these facts and I think the band is a bona-fide notable act - do you mind if I remove the tag?

Thanks.

Billy900 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Billy900: From my reading, I get the impression that this article is attempting to sting together isolated facts from music databases into a original coherent narrative which may be construed as original research or synthesis. Most of the references for Bardot (folk-rock band) are primary sources, e.g. track listings or credits that simply indicate an album's existence, and which say nothing about the success or notability of the material/ The two non-database references are mirrors or derivatives of the Wikipedia article on The Sweet, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What is really needed are non-trivial, independent secondary sources. Of the 12 notability criteria per WP:BAND, only 2 are, in my opinion, arguably satisfied. The members are not necessarily independently notable (per #6) simply because of collaboration with other notable artists (e.g. a one year tour guitarist for The Sweet),, and their "reasonable prominence" in other acts is arguable unless other reliable sources say they are. Notable producers are not criteria for notability per WP:BAND. Providing background vocals on another artist's album should firstly not be under Bardot's discography, and arguably no one in the band is a "reasonably-prominent member" of Graham Bonnet per #6. Bardot apparently released one full album and three singles on a major label (RCA), which may conceivably satisfy criteria #5 of WP:BAND, under the assumption that a single constitutes an album.

If you feel these points constitute notability, I will not challenge the removal of the tag, (but I may include my thoughts on the Talk page). Please strive to write articles based on published sources: if a band never got any press coverage, so be it (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability). There is no need to turn Wikipedia into another Discogs or AllMusic; filled with data but lacking content. Below are the criteria that appear arguably met, based on current evidence in the article.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Marginally satisfied
6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Marginally satisfied
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your thorough and considered reply Animalparty. I concur that the criteria are met marginally but I will remove the tag based on that. Certainly your views are pertinent, and should be recorded in the talk pages. Here? I will strive to improve the article in the following ways - I'll clarify that the Graham Bonnet album is a credit for the band backing vocals, rather than an actual album in their discography. I'll try simplify and remove the sense of stringing together facts, i.e. original research.

Do you think somehow merging the articles for Bardot, The Heroes and Chris Bradford would solve some of these issues?

Thanks, --Billy900 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. You have recently made several additions and deletions to categories on animal behaviour pages. I do not see the justification of some of these. Are you following a particular WP policy? __DrChrissy (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:Hello. I proposed a subcategory of Category:Birds and that was unopposed, and so created Category:Bird behavior, which also logically is a subcategory of Category:Ethology. I inserted the category in certain relevant articles, replacing the existing supercategory with the narrower category where appropriate, following the guidelines at WP:SUBCAT, especially "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category", so for instance I replaced C:Ethology with C:Bird behavior for an article that is only about bird behavior, but added it to articles that deal substantially with bird behaviors and also behavior of other organisms (in which case ethology and bird behavior are both appropriate categories, in my opinion). I made similar changes in a few categories which seemed over-categorized, to avoid categories being subcategories and sub-subcategories, etc. My intentions are only to better organize content. For what it's worth, Category:Birds seems to be a complicated, messy web of circuitous categorization and unclear category names, and I do not intend to parse it out further anytime soon, but felt the creation of a behavior category was warranted and a small step towards clarity. If you feel I've overstepped some boundaries, or disagree, please discuss which examples seem unjustified. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

To the best party animal I've met on Wikipedia!

SergioAwoke (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Force

I don't think I have difficulty writing a neutral article. I'm just exposing verifiable data from different and independent sources. Please proofread the article and make it fit your personal standards.SergioAwoke (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If you could objectively tell what you need to remove all those 3 tags, I can certainly provide those for you. SergioAwoke (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I use non-english source? SergioAwoke (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gratitude for very friendly and helpful welcome to Wikipedia

Hello !

It is a pleasure to thank you for your constructive, helpful assistance and advice on contributing to Wikipedia. Just thought it would be significant for other readers of your work to know of your assistance and good advice to newbies :) (i.e. beginner editors) like me.

I appreciate your friendly welcome and I do take seriously your advice and have full intention to add "layman's" non-experts description to Quasi-crystals supramolecular. This discovery is original and of importance, therefore it merits such popularized non-experts explanations of its meaning and significance. Thank you for your good suggestion. I will follow it. Sincerely, Platanium (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gonopodium

Hi Animalparty! I've come to your User:Animalparty/gonopods page as a result of a Google search. Is there any specific reason why this article(stub) is not in the main namespace? Would you mind if I moved it there? Thanks, SyP (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

i started working on that a while back but got cauht up in other things. The millipede section currently lacks citations, but some of the content is in millipede. I'd like to polish it up a bit more before main space, but thanks for reminding me! I'll bring it live this week. --Animalparty-- (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Animalparty, thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of greenhouse millipede! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for C. A. W. Jeekel

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Tips for improving articles

Hello, Animalparty! Thank you for your advice! I agree that I used some too technical terms in the articles, since it is difficult to define the current genera of land planarian with simple words. I'll try to figure out a way to do it, though. Thank you again! Piter Keo (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Lesperia archippivora

Thank you for your editing of the article. I especially appreciate your cleaning up of the references. I am going to definitely study your techniques. I have a question that I am not sure you can answer or not. Anyway, I began my work on the Lesperia article in my sandbox. This is the right thing to do, right. While I was doing a web search on L. archippivora Google listed my sandbox webpage! How did they find it so quickly? I don't want Google to find and list a page that I am working on and that isn't finished. My initial efforts to pull together this article were pretty lame and I certainly did not want the whole world to see my drafts via a Google search. Can anyone else or can everyone else see what I have in my sandbox? If so, I certainly won't use it until I get a fairly complete article done. What do you think? bpage (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bfpage: I'm not sure how to stop Sandbox pages from being indexed by Google but I think it may be possible. As an alternate measure, you can add the Template:User sandbox to any draft articles in your sandbox(es), so that should anyone find it they will know it is not a Wikipedia article.--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To Animalparty: Thanks for your remarks on Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia

I added a couple of figures yestoday to make this article more attractive for a reader. The topic is relatively new and due to that I may use figures only from my publications. It would be useful for this article to get contributions from other groups working on this subject (StonyBrook and Pantheon, I email them pointing on this article development). In my opinion this article hightlights the importance and strength of Wikipedia database which accumulates all human knowledge and thus allows to perform a mathematical analysis of relations between different articles. --shepelyansky-- 12:18, 14 July 2014 (ECT)

To Animalparty: Thanks for your additions on the Bathynectes muelleri topic

They are perfect. I have more new topics to add but it is a bit difficult for me to create, it's possible to talk with you with a regular email? Best 81.43.116.79 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars and Philosophy

I added the infobox for the book, but the image seems out of place. Can you adjust it to fit the inf box appropriately? Thanks again--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nadirali: I fixed the image. However, the article still needs evidence of notability, (i.e. significant coverage in reliable, non-self-published sources). WP:NBOOK has tips for how to demonstrate a book merits an article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing on image and for informing me. I'll look into more sources for it. Give me a little time. And yes they won't be primary sources.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help

I think you have a lot of experience in reviewing articles because I see your name every once in a while when I am editing. I review new articles, mostly from the oldest end of the list. I try not to hurry through the review process. I have reviewed an article and have tagged it for deletion. I spent quite a bit of time assessing the references and found them to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. I am asking you review the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Jarvis (author). We can't seem to reach a consensus.

bpage (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Animalparty. You have new messages at FloraWilde's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Panangipalli Venugopal

Hi Mate, have opened a discussion on Talk:Panangipalli Venugopal. Would request your comments, thanks for your time. Cheers!!--jojo@nthony (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability of book stubs

Re your comment "the notability of some of your recent book stubs is not always apparent". Thanks. You are correct, and I may have erred in not using RS to establish notability. I planned on expanding the book stubs I started (as well as the botanist stubs). The book stubs I started are all referred to in RS as "historic" or some other such hyperbolic language as to notability. You are correct that I sometimes did not make that apparent in any way. I will be sure that if I start any more articles on botanists or books, I make notability clear, with RS comments as to the notability, and have resources for expanding the article beyond just a stub. If you want to merge any book stub into being sections in articles of articles on the authors, I would have no objection. FloraWilde (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• @FloraWilde: thanks for understanding. Keep in mind that historic can also simply mean "old" :) In particular, I feel all of the reports stemming from The Death Valley Expedition should probably be merged to the expedition article, until the point where enough text warrants a size-related split. In short, I feel like scatted stubs hinder knowledge of the "big picture", and a subject's mere existence doesn't always necessitate an article about it, especially if it's unlikely to link to or, be linked from, an appreciable number of articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, the source referred to two old and classic texts by the same author, but the source only called one of them "historic",[1] This seemed to be RS as to notability for the first, not the second, so I started a stub for the first book but not the second. I erred in not making that clear.

I deferred to your long editing experience (and reasoning as to "scattered stubs hinder knowledge"), and I started to merge the book article stubs into the article on the author. But when I started to do this, I noticed that other editors had put the book articles into "book" categories. Merging would drop the category, or add a "book" category to the author article. Do you have suggestions so that users who are only interested in books do not get their categories dropped? FloraWilde (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@FloraWilde: Since Wikipedia is not a directory, should non-notable books be merged to their author or other article I would defer to the primary article for categorizing, which may entail dropping categories per WP:NONDEF. While this may result in a small loss of 1-to-1 data connectivity, or minor inconvenience for a relatively small number of browsers, it would ensure that categories are kept populated by pertinent, appropriate articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I redirected the books from the Death Valley Expedition to the main article. I may have similarly started other book articles, but I will have to search through my edit history to try to find them in order to do similar redirects. If you ever come across any articles I created that you believe should be redirected, merged, moved, I have no objection to your doing so without notifying me. FloraWilde (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Obergfellia images

I was ready to upload one anthracobunid teeth and two Obergfellia images and discovered someone had beaten me to the punch. Thanks! WolfmanSF (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Megaponera

Hello Animalparty,

I was planning to revise the site Pachycondyla analis aswell. Although because I have big plans for the article (on biology, behaviour, distribution etc.) it will take some time (I am doing my PHD on the species therefore I am personally interested in making the article good and easy to read).

Since somebody just showed me how to use Wikipedia and I wanted to practice a bit I decided to do a small article about the genus first (I am still getting used to on how to write Articles, although I have to say I find it quite enjoyable). Although I agree with you that an article on the genus is unnecessary if there is only one species in it (it was just good practice for me). Unfortunatley I dont know how to merge articles yet or how you can change an already existing articles name (Pachycondyla analis is out dated the articles name should be Megaponera analis).

Thank you for having me at Wikipedia.

--ETF89 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Definist fallacy (disambiguation)

Done. Btw, would you mind (if you can) deleting the redirects Socratic fallacy and Circular cause and consequence? Thanks --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ihaveacatonmydesk:I'm afraid philosophy and logic is out of my realm of knowledge. I don't see anything problematic with Circular cause and consequence: it may be an obscure search term but may help some readers. Socratic fallacy appears to be a valid topic, e.g. "Plato and the "Socratic Fallacy" but if there's not a current article, perhaps a stub could be started, or maybe it could redirect to Socrates with a {{R with potential}} template? BTW, anyone can nominate a redirect for deletion or discussion of target: check out WP:RFD. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology class

Hi. I've been reviewing contributions by the Behavioral Ecology class to wasp articles and I've seen your input quite often. I also saw the concern you raised on the course page about image copyrights. I've noticed the same thing, and I've raised it with some of the students, and plan to discuss it further with the instructor. (She made an effort to educate them about acceptable free images, but some parts of that must have been lost in translation, or well, communication.) Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for all the help and encouragement you've given to the class. Have you considered getting involved with the Education Program? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Geckos

Gekkos of Zimbabwe Afroedura transvaalica DrC.Humphreys (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Dear Sir, Dear Animalparty, I notice you have just patrolled a page I created Afroedura transvaalica. Thank you for correcting my use of quotation marks and italics. I am relatively new / novice at wikipedia and to be honest struggling a bit. Could you please offer some help. I created a page Gekkos of Zimbabwe walberg's gecko that have come in for a lot of criticism and seem likely to be deleted. I am a vet and a herpetology enthusiast from Africa. My contributions on wikipedia are painfully slow because i m still only a newbie. Zimbabwe is not a hotspot of speciation really for botany or zoology or even for reptiles....it does however have a great number of geckos that are endemic, near endemic or have endemic subspecies likely to be raised to species level. I have written the article and tried to improve on it....and cross referenced it as I develop texts for the endemic species (that are usually only stubs or starter articles on wikipedia) but as you will see the criticsms remains the same.....and i m still for the chop with speedy deletion tags.....I have written to the wiki amphibian and reptile group but i guess they have so much to do.....are busy presently Sadly I have twice made spelling mistakes in the headers / starts / titles of articles I created ........ please help Clive Humphreys DrC.Humphreys (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@DrC.Humphreys: Hi and welcome, I'm always happy to help. I've already posted comments on the Amphibians and Reptiles Talk page. Let's continue the discussion there. If you haven't already, make sure to add Project pages to your Watchlist so you can see when people reply or post new comments. (People may not always use the {{reply}} function as I did here to notify the recipient. I will also post comments on your draft at User:DrC.Humphreys/Gekkos of Zimbabwe. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Gekkos of Zimbabwe Walberg's Velvet Gecko Wahlberg's Velvet Gecko Many thanks Animalparty for your help and contributions ..... I tried to alter spellings and made wahlberg (correct) more correct changing walberg (incorrect) and I improved the pages ..... however i seem to have deleted the excellent map you inserted ..... please look at my history to see the species accounts / pages I have been editting .... they all need improving many thanks 22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrC.Humphreys (talk • contribs)

Facebook real-name policy controversy

Hey, thanks for your edits! I've replaced the wikitable with a list to reflect the wiki policy.--DrWho42 (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gekkos of Zimbabwe I resubmitted my article. Gekkos of Zimbabwe DrC.Humphreys (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I have improved this article and plan shortly to move it to Geckos of Zimbabwe to correct a spelling mistake from inception. Would you please review it DrC.Humphreys (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proscelotes arnoldi and Pachydactylus tetensis I notice you patrolled or tagged these articles. Could you please add maps and taxoboxes as you did for Homophilos wahlbergi Many many thanks sir. DrC.Humphreys (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (Cambridge, England formerly Mutare, Zimbabwe)

Ungava Brown Bear

Thanks for reviewing my article and for helping me with the photos for the Ungava brown bear. I apologize for using copyrighted material. I also replied on the page's talk page about references for the trinomial. Stripey the crab (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Evolution of snake venom

Thanks a lot for the review! Yes, I agree that in an ideal world diagrams would be great. Here's the thing though; I I'm not skilful enough to create a diagram of my own, and I don't know enough about copy-right things to retrieve one from the sources. Also, this is a hot topic in research right now, and though the broad contours seem to be clear, there is much detail that is missing. Specifically, there is very little information relating venom diversification to speciation.

That said, there are ideas that smarter people than me might hit upon, so given those constraints, what would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction; I had copied the template a bunch of times from the "Template:SFN" page, and neglected to clean up. It wasn't a "fake reference" so much as simply the sample from that page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Adobe history page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

University of Oregon Department of Computer and Information Science

Hi Animalparty,

I noticed the tags you put on University of Oregon Department of Computer and Information Science, so I added five more sources. Is there anything else you think should be done? Convert the faculty links to references, maybe? Ckere (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

More units to consider

I noticed your "please use spaces in article titles" comment and see you have done a little cleaning. However, before you do any more please look at User talk:Shevonsilva#Pages created (and other recent comments on that page). I think all the pages should be considered together rather than spending half an hour puzzling over each. I'm coming to the view that an WP:AFD for most of them would be in order unless something comes to light soon regarding whether the source is somehow reliable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wild life disease-Merging

Hi Animalparty! It would be great if you could respond to the talk on Wildlife disease. Manum56 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014

Chrysophlegma

Hi! Chrysophlegma used to divert to Picus. I tied myself up in knots a bit, hence the disambiguation when it doesn't seem necessary. Green daemon (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Green daemon: No problem, I have put in a technical request to move the title. Keeping the myriad species and synonyms and articles current can be quite a chore, keep up the good work! --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! :) Green daemon (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Hey. Got your message re: IUCN and IOC. Will use IOC for species recognition from now on. IUCN still good for status and range maps. Cheers for the heads up. Green daemon (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Cursorimorphae

Hello there, how are you? Sorry I did not leave a comment sooner as I had internet issues… regarding what you said, no Javis and his team did not compared the names, but thinking about it "Telamtorae" or "Charadriimorphae" might have been created when Gruiformes used to contain oddballs like bustards, seriemas, Kagu, etc. I will change that. 4444hhhh (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Taurhina splendens

Hi there, thanks for your help. I fixed the page and added a reference.

Ryanvanhuyssteen (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have to reference everything?

Hi, I created Bajanaspis based on the fact that it is mentioned on various websites. Thanks for your edits. I suspect only the original description pays attention to this trilobite, and it looks like it that this article is in Russian, and has not been scanned and uploaded anywhere. So for comprehensiveness I created the ulitimate stub saying virtually nothing. I now sourced it to get rid of this horrible unsourced template, but I do not think it desirable to source the leads of articles, particularly if these are so poor in content as this one. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje:Thanks for adding the source. And yes, every article, even a stub, needs at least one reference, per verifiability policy, and if you want others to build upon your stubs, adding a reference is the best way to give them a starting point. In my opinion, creating stubs that say virtually nothing is of limited value, albeit the information in Bajanaspis is slightly better than the too-common biology stubs that simply state: "X is a species of Y named by Author in Year". Cheers, and happy editing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute curation

Thanks Animalparty for your helpful comments on the article Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. Yes, it definitely needs to be expanded in terms of history and projects. I will be working on this over time and I am hoping other interested editors will add to it. I will probably work on integrating the 2003 study into thematic research areas. I am looking for more references that are not created by the Institute and related agencies.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved

I fixed the problem you mentioned on my talk page. Heteroponera leae ants are more southerly distributed. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I loved your work!

	Blue diamond.
	Please, don´t go away. I need you, sangha diamond. My body, my words and my mind are yours. Marcioseno (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: A page you started (Macrosoma klagesi) has been reviewed!

Hello Animalparty,

Thanks for reviewing the page Macrosoma klagesi, I saw your note in my talk page, but didn't understand you clearly. You have mentioned not to use undefined jargon; it would be helpful if you let me know if anything wrong I mentioned.

Regards,
Tapas Bose 17:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tapas.23571113: I was referring to general guidelines that Wikipedia articles should be written to be understandable by general readers, not just scientists. Jargon refers to technical terms that can often be explained in more familiar language. See WP:NOTJARGON #7: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field." and #8: "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics..." Macrosoma klagesi and many other Macrosoma articles appear written for specialists, understandably given the scientific literature cited, but those sources are written for lepidopterists and other entomologists; Wikipedia articles should be written for a more general audience, and we as editors should promote comprehension over mere facts. Most readers will not understand things like "Saccus is short. The medial component of gnathos is not downcurved..." What exactly is a saccus and a gnathos? More tips and information again is at Make technical articles understandable, and Writing better articles. For more specific examples, see how description is handled in some of the recognized best Lepidoptera articles on Wikipedia: e.g. Chrysiridia rhipheus, Abantiades latipennis and Lulworth skipper. These articles impart knowledge without excessive use of specialized terminology. At Hedylidae, although technical terms are used, they are at least wikilinked to aid in comprehension. If you haven't already, you might find more helpful tips and resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera or Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects. Please don't mistake this advice for discouragement: your contributions are welcome! If you have additional questions please ask. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Thank you for the explanation. I have interest in Entomology but I am not a professional in this field. So I have to rely on the academic articles. For the Macrosoma I didn't find much of the online resources and I am hoping if any specialist of this field would edit or add more information on these topics. I will try to describe the terms now on and will edit my previous pages. Regards,Tapas Bose 08:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

list of marine mammals

Hi @Animalparty,

Yes, I have linked it to the Cetartiodactyla page as its debated still but current research suggests the its the true Order. The discussion is both on the Marine mammal page and the Cetartiodactyla pages. I felt that it should not be too extensive on the page which is just a list. But I will add a short footnote. I am the Education Committee Chair for the Society for Marine Mammalogy and we will be adding the remainder of IUCN red list statuses during a editathon which we will host called the Marine Mammal WikiSprint in late January. The draft course page can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Society_for_Marine_Mammalogy/Marine_Mammal_WikiSprint_%28Winter%29

Perhaps you'd like to enroll. It would be great to have some strong Wikipedians involved!

Thanks ShaneGero (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis infobox

I'm currently going through WP:WikiProject Gender Studies articles and labelling any that don't have an infobox. Looking at the article the taxobox template might be appropriate. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: The taxobox is a special infobox for biological taxa, i.e. taxonomic ranks like, species, orders, phyla, etc. (see Tiger or Insect for usage) Parthenogenesis is a reproductive mode used by many unrelated organisms, so Taxobox would not apply. This might be a case when a well-written lead is more practical than an infobox. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I may actually take it out of WP:WikiProject Gender Studies as gender studies has more to do with identity formation in human beings, nature versus nurture, rather than this form of asexual reproduction. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought, I've added it to WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, it's more their sort of thing. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis infobox

I'm currently going through WP:WikiProject Gender Studies articles and labelling any that don't have an infobox. Looking at the article the taxobox template might be appropriate. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: The taxobox is a special infobox for biological taxa, i.e. taxonomic ranks like, species, orders, phyla, etc. (see Tiger or Insect for usage) Parthenogenesis is a reproductive mode used by many unrelated organisms, so Taxobox would not apply. This might be a case when a well-written lead is more practical than an infobox. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I may actually take it out of WP:WikiProject Gender Studies as gender studies has more to do with identity formation in human beings, nature versus nurture, rather than this form of asexual reproduction. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought, I've added it to WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, it's more their sort of thing. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for your work on Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help in the barred lizard wikipage MThuneibat (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Beetles

Hi! It's Gug01. I know that you are interested in animals and because you are part of WP:WikiProject Arthropods, I was thinking that we could revive the WikiProject Beetles, which is a descendant project from WikiProject Arthropods that is currently semi-active. Please reply as soon as you can. Gug01 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01

Anematichthys repasson

I believe those two articles actually describe the same species? >> Cyclocheilichthys repasson and >> Anematichthys repasson. What do you think? Dan Koehl (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those are synonyms, see FishBase synonyms. I saw that after editing Anematichthys repasson. Catalog of Fishes suggests Cyclocheilichthys is the valid genus, yet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy suggests we use FishBase on Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Im still not 100% how to deal with this species, and which name is presently valid, so I renewed my question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes, nothing personal, I just want to get more peoples feedback on the issue. I agree with you that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy suggests we use FishBase, but since this is maybe not the absolute best source for taxonomy, I want to see what others say. Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Species collaboration?

Hi, Animalparty, how are you? I noticed that you have a lot of experience working with species articles, so I was wondering if we could do some collaboration on species articles. I could learn a lot from you! Regardless, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! What did you have in mind by collaboration? I'll try my best to offer advice when I can. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As if right now, I have nothing in mind, but please let me know if you find a species stub that has a lot of potential refs out there. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This....

This is called, somebody just learned how to use InkScape! Joking aside, do you have thoughts on how to approach the Ornate shrew article, since there are already two articles going on separate subspecies? I'd like to take it to GA status, but not sure how to avoid Wikipedia:Content forking. One thought would be to bring the subspecies articles into the parent species article, then have just one large article. Any advice would be appreciated. --Gaff (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gaff:Welcome to Inkscape! I meant no disrespect with the "lesser quality" comment, but as it does not clearly show important or diagnostic traits, it seems superfluous. I'm not sure if merging the subspecies is warranted yet: perhaps first the species article should be more fully developed, with each subspecies succinctly described in a table similar to Brown bear (red-links may not then not even be needed), only linking the subspecies with existing articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No offense taken. It's not easy to find images of smaller mammals, since they are more elusive and not as photogenic as the larger beasts. The skull drawing was made when I was still searching for the better images. Another shrew skull drawing (different animal) is in the works here, by a much more skilled illustrator. Thanks for the guidance. I'll use Brown bear as a model. Gaff (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Darwinia oxylepis

Hello Animalparty (or perhaps Eagleeye),

Thanks for your note about D. oxylepis - you are perfectly correct. I should have read more carefully and written something like - "currently meets the IUCN Red List Category EN...." (although the reference I used is now 11 years old!). It will be fixed in the next few minutes.

Cheers!

Gderrin (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks again.

Gderrin (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfair

So my page can be deleted but not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_lonely_will_anyone_speak_to_me Really? Beyonder (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Beyonder

@BeyonderGod: when your website is significantly covered by Wired, The Guardian, The New Yorker, or any other reliable source, only then is your article worth having on Wikipedia, per General notability guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and feel free to nominate any article you feel warrants deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see the page on those covers please to validate the claims you made. Beyonder (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Beyonder

@BeyonderGod: Wired, Guardian, New Yorker discuss I am lonely will anyone speak to me. My own opinion is that article is dumb and frivolous, but several reliable publications thought it worth discussing, and my opinions do not dictate WP:Notability, nor do those of any Wikipedia editor. See also WP:NOTGUIDE #4: Wikipedia is not an internet guide. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Jim Thompson (designer)

Hi Animalparty,

Thanks for reviewing the page Disappearance of Jim Thompson (designer).

Please arrange for the article to be deleted.

I’ll continue to work on the original article whenever I’ve the time to do so.

Regards.

Roysouza (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How to read the "short description" section?

Hi Animalparty! I was wondering if you could explain to me what units are being used under "Short description", as I'm not 100% experienced with using FishBase. www.fishbase.org/summary/Liparis-mucosus.html Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: There are no units, those are the numbers of spiny rays and soft rays in the dorsal fins, anal fins, etc. See Fin ray for more details. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Wow, now I feel very silly. Thank you very much! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Just one more thing: where can I find the FishBase species I.D. from the given link? Bananasoldier (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: It's a bit indirect but if you hover over many of the species-specific links on the page (e.g. Common name or synonyms), the url should appear at the bottom of the page, with the ID number in it (in this case ID=4197). Clicking one of those links similar shows the URL (e.g. Common names of Liparis mucosus.

Berkley Media Studies Group

Hello, I'm interested in why you removed one of the citations from this stub. Is there a WP policy or guideline against citing the source of an article? If not, please undo, and let's discuss it on the talk page first. Thanks, and have a great day. Darknipples (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at the talk page. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research tagging

Hi AP, I noticed that you added a couple of tags to the article I recently created The X-Files sources and analogues. While i can understand your concerns regarding some of the sources, I don't know how the original research tag stands as I cited the statements in the article even if some of the sources require replacement. Please bring up your concerns on the talk page of the article so that the tags can be clarified. Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've added more reliable sources to back up the self-published one, so is OK to remove the self-published tag? If you still have any issues witht eh citations, then please share on the talk page--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IUCN citation template

Good morning! Wonderful rain we're having. I was wondering if you could help me format a citation for www.iucnredlist.org/details/202437/0, or if it's okay to copy & paste the citation the page gives at the bottom (NatureServe 2013. Elassoma evergladei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 January 2015.). Thanks for everything! Bananasoldier (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done No worries! I figured it out! Bananasoldier (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also

Also, what do you think of the Liparis_marmoratus#Description I wrote? Would it be considered WP:close paraphrasing, or is it acceptable to have information from only one source? Very little information is published about the fish because of its rarity. Bananasoldier (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)  Done Bananasoldier (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice: Speedy deletion nomination of Molarity (disambiguation)

Regarding the speedy deletion nomination of Molarity (disambiguation), I will first confess that I have only a little experience crafting disambiguations.

Second, there is indeed a primary topic, as the chemistry term "molarity" will more frequently be the object of a search. However, the page for Molarity simply redirects to molar concentration. So if I put a notice on the primary "molarity" article to the effect of "Molarity may also refer to Molarity (comic strip)," almost nobody will ever read it. I decided to create a disambiguation page. Perhaps if I had more experience, I might have made a better decision.

Can you suggest a better method to disambiguate? For example, should I edit the "molar concentration" article to include a reference to the comic strip?

Third, your message refers to a button reading "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". I cannot find such a button. Beamjockey (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Beamjockey: I have already added a dab to molar concentration. Dab pages are generally not needed when only two titles share the same name: see WP:2DABS. I hope this helps! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Thanks for taking care of that. Somebody has since killed Molarity (disambiguation), so I think all is well now. Beamjockey (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Wiktionary is

fine for supergroup regardless of the number of definitions it has. I'm unsure about creating a WP article for it though. ComfyKem (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lineville College

Thanks for the note about references. I cleaned it up and added a second reference. Can I remove your warning note at the top? Haiku Tea (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Haiku Tea: No not yet: both references are still Primary sources. the article needs references that don't come from the school brochure, nor the notes of a student who went there. You should certainly not copy the text of a brochure word for word. We need book, news, or reliable internet coverage of the College itself. If you spend time in libraries, you might find third party information in a book on the history of Alabama. There are some sources that at least mention the college briefly on Google Books, you should consult those and similar to find enough info to construct an article. When was the college built? Is it still around and if not when did it close? If these facts cannot be verified, the article has little chance of expanding. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will change the structure of the wording as it is the brochure text and look for more references. I closed in the early 1900's. Haiku Tea (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Haliplus variegatus

Thanks for the review and input. Now it looks much better. Sorry that didn't went all the way to the bottom.--Mishae (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Paleontology Paleontologists Taskforce

Hello,

I noticed you have edited the Paleontologists taskforce page, and have indicated interested in science biographies, so I wanted to let you know that I am interested in gathering interest in this taskforce to help improve the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of paleontologists. The taskforce now has a template to tag articles, and I hope to help expand the articles within the scope of this project. Hza a 9 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded on the talk page, and am looking forward to this. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Qari mufti aqeel

You tagged Qari mufti aqeel for deletion, but tag was removed. I added a tag again. Please help me keep an eye on this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine!

		Sunshine!
		Hello Animalparty! Gug01 (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Gug01 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Duivelsberg/Wylerberg

There's the question! The Dutch wikipedia page is nl:Duivelsberg (heuvel). The German page is de:Wylerberg. The border area is both Dutch and German speaking. I don't want to start off a Dutch-German border incident (I'm sure the Allies don't want to have to retake the hill all over again) which is why I used both names. Let me look at the precedents. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Breeding" and "Nonbreeding" fish?

Hi Animalparty! I was wondering if you could explain the terms "breeding" and "nonbreeding" fish as mentioned in the "description" paragraph: [2]. Are they referring to mature vs. juveniles? Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: I believe that's referring to males of some species changing in color or morphology during breeding season, similar to some birds (a breeding plumage molting to a less colorful plumage). So it would apply to mature individuals, but not necessarily year-round. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Generalization

I don't think that saying "Please stop inferring generalities from very specific papers" was very nice of you. First of all, I assume that you are aware that I follow the guidelines no worse then anyone else here, and I cite books and journals which are appropriate. I don't now what you mean by "consulting a single other source" and using "big picture" sources? Back when I started editing here, I used BugGuide and Biolib.cz as an RS but people told me that its not reliable, (same thing with EUNIS and ITIS). And since beetles are not covered by news sources and majority of scientific papers (since they don't extract any venom that can be useful in medical journals (unlike ants)) its virtually impossible to find another reliable source. I'm sorry if my stubs make you feel angry at me for generalizing and probably are simply written, but I sometimes don't find anything that is of use. I can try visit my college library at some point though. Chances are at null though there...:( This is as far as this species will go: Dicerca pugionata.--Mishae (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: I'm sorry if I came across as angry. By big picture sources I mean a source that is large enough in scope to reliably make meaningful assertions. The article you cite at Dicerca pugionata concerns only bugs recorded in Pennsylvania, which is not incorrect but which omits all the places the bugs are also found. While the BugGuide page for Dicerca pugionata may not be a reliable source, like any good Wikipedia article it will cite reliable sources like this one, which gives the whole range for the species on page 279.

I have previously observed you generalizing or incorrectly inferring from primary literature (see my previous comments on your own talk page). For instance, stating color, (e.g. Athous angulifrons, Athous tauricola) from sources that merely include a picture, runs the risk of incorrectly characterizing reality: a species could be variously colored, or differ between sexes, or the lighting/color of the photo could be poor, etc., thus making assertions not explicitly verified can be problematic. Another instance, the "endemic to Macedonia" status of Athous turcicus appears based on the first two photos here but is falsified by the third image).

You've contributed many articles to Wikipedia, which no doubt expand the encyclopedia and serve as useful starting points, but thus it is all the more important to ensure each of your creations are well-sourced and measured in their statements, in case unnoticed, uncorrected misrepresentations are perpetuated in the many mirrors of Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

O.K. I have fixed Athous turcicus article. To be honest, its latin name implies that its native to Turkey but I can't find sources that might confirm that.--Mishae (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a better source for film credits than IMDB?

That headline pretty much says it all.  :-) Msalt (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Msalt: Basically any source that is not user-generated. A news article, or other source with a reputation for integrity. Please see WP:RS/IMDB for rationale, and WP:RELIABLE for how to identify reliable sources. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I removed the IMDB links (except under external links) and replaced them with reliable sources. OK for me to remove the tag, or do you want to check it out yourself? Msalt (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Msalt: the sourcing at Dax Jordan is much better now. You should also remove embedded external links (especially to sites that merely direct viewers to watch films), in line with WP:ELPOINTS #2. and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Thanks again for your help. I removed the embedded external link, so I'm going to remove that sourcing/IMDB tag. Please correct me or revert if that's inappropriate. Thanks! Msalt (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Msalt: Sounds good to me. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Gonzalo Giribet

I have seen that you tagged the above article for primary sources. I'm wondering what is considered a reliable source for academics, considering that they are not covered by major news publications (except for Dr.OZ/Dr.Phil)?--Mishae (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: I'll assume you're familiar with WP:SCHOLAR, which the article hasn't yet explicitly demonstrated. There are a few reliable, secondary sources (e.g. Harvard Gazette and other Harvard publications, not necessarily independent) that discuss some aspects of Giribet's work, which is a good start. Reliable sources about academics are no different than other reliable sources: e.g. books, news, or scientific publications. Assuming WP:SCHOLAR is satisfied, excessive discussion of primary literature is still discouraged and qualified per WP:PRIMARY in that they only verify research has occurred, not the significance of the research, which can only be demonstrated by secondary sources. You also misrepresent facts and/or offer your own analysis by stating things like "he proved X in a paper", which any scientist or science writer will tell you is almost never correct: individual studies may strongly suggest things, support hypotheses, or disprove (falsify) hypotheses, but almost never prove something (under the Popperian scientific method). It's quite possible that the conclusions of one paper are refuted or modified by subsequent research, even by the same author! The best way to fairly, proportionally assess a scholar's prominence is to cite how his/her research is received. Cite what other people say about his research. Search for reviews of his books or works. Look for verification of editing prominent journals, or receipt of prestigious awards. If you can't say anything about a paper of aspect of research other than that it was published, it's probably best not to discuss it until it can be properly contextualized by secondary sources. These comments apply to all Biography articles of scientists, in the aims of neutrally, proportionally, and accurately conveying exactly how and why a scholar is notable. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, the sources for academics are a bit different from the rest. For example, academics unlike athletes are not appearing in major publications outside of their scientific field. I have seen in my lifetime only 4 academics on public TV, which means there will 1 entry in New York Times for example for an academic while there will be a ton for either sports or political figure. So yes, scientific publications is the main (if not the only way) to write about them. Also, I would like to apologize for any misrepresentation. I like science a lot, but since English is my second language it was difficult for me to find an alternative to discovered. I will bear it in mind though that using support is better then proven. The good thing about me is that I don't have COI problems with any topic, that's why I edit multiple topics and am being neutral as possible.--Mishae (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: There's nothing wrong with using scientific publications to verify content. The published views of fellow scientists are probably more important than any coverage in the New York Times or mass media, which don't always present a full or accurate picture. The issue here is not reliability or verifiability but neutrality by not arbitrarily highlighting or cherry-picking papers by the subject. A given paper may be groundbreaking or total bunk or relatively unremarkable in the field, and the best way to evaluate due and undue weight, would be to cite scientific review articles or scholarly books (or even news), e.g. something that clearly says "the papers by Joe Scientist were important in developing this aspect of their field" (and such statements will exist if a person is notable). We as editors should never infer importance from a primary source (publication by the subject) unless it is supported by reliable sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Google Scholar is a good source, but only as an external link. Gonzalo does have a high h-index to be honest. So, where in the world did you saw a review of an article? Like, I have a ton of scientific peer reviewed journals but non of them say "the papers by Joe Scientist were important in developing this aspect of their field". They do state specific scientific discovery though.--Mishae (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I've seen a review that responds to any of Giribet's work, only that one will exist if he is notable (and I do not doubt he is!). Google Scholar is but one way to find sources. Google Books is another (7th place in a windsurfing championship!). A JSTOR or Web of Science search, should you have institutional access, is probably better. You might try browsing sources that cite his works (perhaps focusing on or filtering for review articles), or reviews of his co-edited book on Harvestmen, and its likely (but not necessarily so) that his most-cited works are most influential. In line with WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB, limited usage of primary and/or self-published sources is fine as long as it is not excessive, unduly promotional or one-sided, nor the basis of any analysis. Primary sources simply say what happened- secondary sources show why it matters, and make for much better articles. At this point I don't think there is any argument over notability, but I hope I've given you some good suggestions. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wondering why you continuing removing Sarah Boyer from a list of doctoral students. Some articles like Hans Westerhoff have a whole list and, no one complains.--Mishae (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion of the article on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Alister Clark Memorial Rose Garden

Dear Animalparty, I've read your banner and responded to it by commenting in the article's Talk section. Let me know what you think. Erictimewell (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Steve Harrison (advertising)

Hi there, I've replaced what I think is the incorrect link I placed on the page I am creating, please can you let me know if there are any other links that are incorrect or unrelaible before placing the unreliable link header? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedJulianG40 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion via redirect

I think if you are going to delete an article by redirecting it without moving the content to the redirected page, you should have to go through AfD or at least give an explanation. The name has a history, and maybe the page should be a disambiguation page for the various species, or maybe the name developed more in the genus article, but, again, if you are just going to delete all the content by redirecting the page and not moving any content, then explain why, and we can go to AfD. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@MicroPaLeo: my apologies if my bold redirect was abrupt, but I figured the two sentences, lacking citations, at Split rock plant that say X is a common name of most or all members of a genus was better off just redirecting to the genus. Afd is a last resort when measures to improve articles (including merging) have failed, and we certainly shouldn't go to Afd for any removal of content. In some case a common name article is warranted if many unrelated organisms share similar common names, but when the entirety of Split rock plant can be addressed in a sentence of Pleiospilos, I'd say that is most prudent: both articles are largely talking about the same group of plants. I feel the more stepping stone articles we create, the more difficult it can be to navigate between articles and quickly find content. You may feel differently, and if so might want to bring it up with regular WP Plants contributors for greater consensus. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a new article, and I was looking for a great source, but ithe source is in a foreign language. The names have a cool and long story, but the only sources appear to be Bantu languages. I see this a lot on Wikipedia, redirects without any respect to existing content, and I wish editors would at least acknowledge that something was there instead of boldly going "wipe, you're gone." What I wrote is not in the current article, no attachment to species, the common names in the genus article are just a list with no context, and the name primarily refers to the one species, sourceable in English. People are interested in common names. At this point, I cannot find the Non-English sources, and I have lost interest, which is easy to do on Wikipedia (I was sorting moths and people were seriously worried that editors not working on moth articles might have heart attacks that anyone was sorting moth articles according to the existing scheme, so I abandoned the category to them to pull the 2000 moths out of the 4000 insects. However, since none are editing moth articles, I am not holding my breath.)

Please just use some method to indicate you considered the existing content and why you wiped it out. It is not in the genus article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@MicroPaLeo: Redirects, while mostly invisible, are not irretrievably gone, and their edit history is still accessible after a redirect. You're welcome to add well-sourced content to the genus article, or any article, at any time, and Non-English sources are allowed (although the content should still probably focus on English language use per WP:NOTDIC), and if the names have a cool story, it would probably be just as welcome as info on cultural use, history of discovery, taxonomy, biology, and all the other aspects of a subject. I still think the best place to discuss the name(s) of a plant is at the plant article, not a separate article for a name of a plant. Since almost all the plant articles in the genus are stubs/Start, there is more to be improved at all levels before content should be split. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Michele Raffin

Quick question; I have just created this article but don't know where it fits. Is being bird rescuer is the same as being an ornithologist? Like, she was featured in the New York Times, which establishes her notability, but the profession is confusing. Can you help? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange, you never explained the reason behind removal of LCCN parameter. Why you did it? According to {{cite book}} it can be present there, can't it?--Mishae (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

i did it purely for aesthetics but I won't object if you want to restore it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided to restore it since not every book I think have library of congress number (or they do but is not specified). Besides, for majority of our readers it will be easier to find that way then to go through a whole ISBN list.--Mishae (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RE: Partial title matches and disambiguation

Hallo Animalparty.

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Sorry, that I haven´t replied sooner but I have been visiting family.

Firstly; I wasn´t aware of the guidelines on partial title matches. Thank you for bringing these to my attention.

I can see that some of the DAB-pages I have created are in clear violation here since these fall under "search index". This was made intentionally by me (without me knowing about the guidelines) simply because I thought it would be a good idea. The three examples you mentioned (Branchial Buccopharyngeal and Proper artery) where actually some I wondered if it would be to go a bit to far. This is especially true for Brachial. But I thought; why it might be unnecessary there wouldn´t be any harm in doing it. So all was done in good faith.

I have however made a lot of DABs like Common digital arteries where I think it makes a lot of sense and still follows the guidelines. How do you see this example?

You are absolutely right than many of the DABs would be better as either glossary or index articles. It was my idea that some of the DABs would evolve into such in time. I just didn´t have the time to do so myself at the moment, so creating the DABs seemed like a step in the right direction. Then WP:Anatomy would have a indexed list of perhaps 500 DABs that we could run through to "upgrade" into glossary or index articles; while the DABs wasn´t perfect they would at least be better than nothing in my opinion; the same way that one-line stubs about a subject it better than nothing at all.

Sorry for the long post. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jakob. I'm not an active editor in Anatomy articles, but I think all these dab pages should be discussed as a group at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy, so that those editors most familiar with the terminology and the existing article structure can figure out which pages should be dabs or set indexes, and/or which should be combined, deleted, etc. All the best.--Animalparty-- (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with image

Hey AP. I could use some help improving this section. I need to resize the image to fit the section and adjust it for readers to see Deep Space 1, especially it's solar panels more clearly. Also I'm aiming for it not to stick out too much into the next section. If there's anything you can do about it, I'm very grateful. Thanks AP.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of dinosaur specimens idea

I responded to your comment on the List of dinosaur specimens and I wondered what you think about my suggestion that the article could be split into more meaningful and specific lists. Abyssal (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Animalparty,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Celebrate

	Yoor Know Phool
	Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  20:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Collaborating on Ottó Herman

Hi Animalparty

I can certainly help, I have written articles in both languages. However, the Hungarian article is VERY detailed, perhaps I can start with the scientific section. Hollomis (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hollomis: Thanks for responding! Yes I think it would be good to proceed one section at a time, so that we can fix details before the final thing is complete. Not every sentence needs to be translated of course, and when possible the English sources can be supplemented if they verify the same things (English sources preferred, but not required). Again, thanks for getting involved. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

long limbless lepidosaurs

Thanks for the thanks. I was pretty much amazed that "snakes" had evolved so many different times. It's pity we can't have an article on thatEricl (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ericl: there is some discussion at Legless lizard and Limbless vertebrates, but I think there is certainly room for an expanded article on limb reduction and loss across reptiles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Vary Chamberlin revert

Hi, regarding your revert on Ralph Vary Chamberlin, I don't quite understand it, you have reverted an edit adding two DOIs to the previous version of the article that has DOIs for four other references? Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rjwilmsi: I restored one doi to a reference, where generally they are useful, but I don't think it is appropriate to add doi clutter to the neat list at Ralph_Vary_Chamberlin#Selected_works. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fustiaria

Zipcode Zoo reference and accompanying paragraph duly removed— thank you for pointing this out. Much appreciated. KDS4444^Talk 04:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eucteniza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hidalgo, Mexico. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Biologists

Hi. Can you please check Pablo Visconti and William Jeffery articles for me? I assume that I altered facts somewhere (due to my Russian being first language), and would appreciate any help. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How is this: William Jeffery--Mishae (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Unicorn (spider)

Hello! Your submission of Unicorn (spider) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Christiaan Both

Well, its hard to say where my expertise lies. My goal is to find a notable individual and write a Stub or Start article on him/her. Google Scholar is the main ref that I add, but as you see I now start looking into various CVs to find anything else of notability. At least I am trying to write start class articles. I hope that this article is not promotional? Let me know if something is wrong.--Mishae (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: The issue lies in notability as recognized by third party sources (and again, this comment can apply to many of your biography articles, not just Christiaan Both). Notability must be demonstrated. What you think is notable may be challenged, and what you think is noteworthy (worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia) may be totally misguided. I feel that Christiaan Both and many of your biographies are marginally notable, i.e. after argument and investigation, might barely meet the notability guidelines. However as I've indicated before, satisfying notability guidelines and writing a decent article are two different things. I think that in the hands of a skilled writer who is very knowledgeable of a field or a given researcher, a good, fair and balanced article could possibly be made from some of your barely notable subjects. However, I don't think you take the time to gather the necessary third-party perspectives to write fair and balanced articles, and this is why you will continue to be challenged by people thinking your articles are too promotional. CVs and primary literature by the subject can be used within reason, but should never be the only sources cited, otherwise they violate WP:NPOV (see also WP:BLPSTYLE). While I'm sure there are many academic biographical stubs that do this, that does not mean it is a good idea to perpetuate the practice. To improve your writing style, you might visit external sites like [3] or How to write a biography, or see WP:BTIP. And yes, it's true that many articles begin as stubs and proceed to GA or FA articles, but keep in mind that the less notable a person is, the less likely anyone besides you will bother to improve the article. To conclude and reiterate: I think you should focus more on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (policies, mind you) rather than WP:SCHOLAR (merely a guideline). Invoking the Golden rule, if you can't find and cite reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss a subject or their research, than perhaps you should avoid creating a BLP article until you can. The end result would be better articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see a POV in my articles?--Mishae (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It is subtle, and relatively benign, but when you only present primary research by the subject, the significance is not apparent. The point of view is thus not negative or positive, but is simply one-sided and without context, i.e. only the POV of the subject. See WP:PRIMARY. We had this same discussion regarding Gonzalo Giribet. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that article at least had Harvard Gazette (and I was fortunate to find it). I for one wrote two articles where I did provided The New York Times at least once: Bing Liu and Michele Raffin. Why is it my fault that there is no sources usually available besides the notability factor from h-index of GS? Besides, a lot of articles on scientists do use primary sources. Look at Mikhail Shifman for example. It not my fault that academics don't go public a whole lot.--Mishae (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: I'm glad to see you focusing on starts over stubs. I've already mentioned that many academic biographies like Mikhail Shifman are stacked with primary sources, but that doesn't make them any better (Shifman's at least has some secondary sources in the External links, and his awards alone indicate that he is indisputably notable in his field). Don't confuse notability (which is about the subject, regardless of article) with content (how the notability is conveyed on Wikipedia). A notable subject can have an imbalanced article, and/or one that fails to convey notability. I'm discussing your treatment of notable subjects. You can't control the number or availability of sources, but you can control what you write about, and how. You've touched on one problem though: finding sources. The less widely known a person is, the more likely their research has only been discussed in academic circles. This does make it harder to write a fair and balanced article, but that's what we're stuck with, and writing a good article isn't necessarily easy (the FUTON bias can easily apply to Wikipedians). Look beyond citation rates (see caveats at Citation metrics, and keep in mind there is no magic H-index score that automatically guarantees notability), and dig deeper into sources. For every fact you write, or paper you mention, ask yourself "why does the world need to know this?" then try to find a secondary source that answers that. This may likely require looking at the papers that cite your subject's, and seeing the context of the "highly cited works": e.g. something like "Both (2005) described for the first time the nesting behavior of the African swamp owl" is more noteworthy than "Many previous studies have studied African swamp owl nesting (e.g. Adams 1980, Barker 1985, Carter 1990, Both 2005)". Possibly (albeit unlikely), every citation is trivial, or directly refuting a study. Again, my suggestion is that if you can't find the secondary sources required per WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY, even of arguably notable subjects, don't write a BLP article (or perhaps request an article at relevant WikiProjects to allow other editors to give it a crack). Lastly, you could avoid BLP issues altogether, and maybe find more secondary sources (obituaries, tributes, biographies) if you focused on deceased persons. I hope you understand I'm trying to help you improve your articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is is that are hardly any dead academics left. I wrote about 10 articles on dead academics. Writing articles on dead academics is risky though. Chances are, Wikipedia already have an article on them. Like, I understand your concern though. Please note though that I am not trying to POV anything, I don't know a single academic face to face. I think per my above statements I will stick with BLP and see where it will lead. At least we have some improvement, and there hopefully will be more to come. As a side note, the main reason why I write about scientists usually is because I usually like to read them.--Mishae (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: You're free to do what you will. Just remember, everything in context. Most general first, then specific if need be, without being too specific (sometimes less is better than too much, per WP:DUE). And I totally disagree that there are hardly any dead academics left. There are indisputably notable scientists yet to have an English article, or any article, on Wikipedia. I share your interest in science biographies, and earlier this month started Ottó Herman, which is FA class in Hungarian Wikipedia, and just today added János Balogh (biologist). If you want to tackle more low-hanging fruit, likely with an abundance of secondary sources, you might look for red links under major societies or national awards (e.g. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Linnean Society of London, or Kossuth Prize). All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly how I write articles! I sometimes find red links, especially in ballet, sports, and science (that's how I wrote most of my articles on paralympians). As of today I got a book called Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 44th edition. 1962-1963. I found a few (possibly dead) physicists and chemists. The sad fact is that since back then people wrote with initials finding a chemist named A. B. Burg, is like looking for a needle in a hay stag.--Mishae (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

California Academy of Sciences

Ok. What if I take out the external links and some of the directory information?

If you will do that, I think it would be fine, since Wikipedia is not a directory. But first, maybe we should learn how to sign our names?--Mishae (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at Talk:California_Academy_of_Sciences#Reversion_of_recent_additions, so as not to get into an edit war. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Animesh Ray

Well, this one at least have PR Newswire as an independent source. Problem is, is that for some reason I can't find his CV, so it is empty on early life. :(--Mishae (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, PR stands for public relations, and those sources are press releases, meaning that all content is generally written by the subject's institution/university in order to publicize research (which brings them money). Thus while verifiable, press releases are not at all independent, do not establish notability, and may be construed as more promotional than the original studies they describe. The sources [4], and [5], are the same exact press release, and do not need to be cited twice if at all. Sometimes "reliable sources" like newspapers (even the New York Times!) repackage such press releases as stories, and so care must be taken to see exactly who wrote the article: Many news briefs in LiveScience or even National Geographic News merely paraphrase press releases rather than do their own reporting, and almost all content on websites like ScienceDaily consists purely of press releases, and should be avoided if possible, in any article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: Also, while I am not making any judgement on the person's notability, nor recommending the use in any article, more of the subject's biographical can be found here. http://www.kgi.edu/faculty-and-research/profiles/animesh-ray.html#!/about. And lastly, why did you assume he is Indian? Because of his name? Never assume things like that. His biography mentions education in Australia and research in the United States. For all we know he could have been born in England or New York City or Pakistan or Zimbabwe. It is better to leave nationalities blank until they can be verified. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Well, I have found two sources mentioning him (one of which I added) in The New York Times, but its a mention of discovery. You are right about not assuming stuff, but where can you find his date and place of birth? The link that you gave doesn't provide that, on the other hand, is better to have something then nothing.--Mishae (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is better to have nothing than false or misleading information. If no reliable sources have his birth date, or relatively unremarkable data like home town, high school, favorite color, etc. so be it! Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, we should respect privacy of low-profile individuals, and only include what is most notable- that is, predominantly what third party sources focus on. Lastly, for this and any other article you write, I again urge you to not merely spout random conclusions from random papers, but try to focus on why it matters (why should anyone care?). You're good at finding facts, but need to work on providing context. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

John R Clarke

Hi Animalparty and thank you for reviewing John R Clarke. Our User:Gene Hobbs is Gene Hobbs, but probably wouldn't think to mention that to you. You can see from his article that he has no COI when writing about John Clarke, although I'd be surprised if Gene didn't know him. It's worth remembering our guidance on self-published sources that are used to support claims about themselves. Such sources are normally acceptable as long as their claims are not extraordinary, unduly self-serving, or of doubtful authenticity - and the article isn't based principally on them. I think you'll find that http://johnclarkeonline.com/ is being used within those guidelines, but I'm sure that Gene would find it helpful if you pointed out any specific instance that you considered went beyond them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, Thank you for your note. I am very familiar with each of those guidelines. I am also familiar with the stance on Facebook however I could not find another source that proved he is still an active diver. Can you?

Yes, I do know John since he is an active researcher in my field. If you were in this field you would know him as well. It is not exactly like we are a big group and we are not growing since most are retiring. How exactly would you suggest I pick the articles I write if being notable in a small field and me not knowing them are the criteria?

Thanks for the review! Take care. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gene Hobbs: If certain facts cannot be reliably sourced, even if true, then they should probably be omitted from an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research, which precludes personal communications (unless such communication were to be published in a reliable source). Writing about people you know personally or professionally presents at least the potential for non-neutrality (e.g. conscious or unconscious bias towards positive coverage, or disproportionate view of a subject's notability and due weight of content), and is discouraged per WP:COISELF. Some advice for connected editors is discussed at WP:COIADVICE. I would recommend not creating any more articles of colleagues in your small field, although you can increase the notability (as well as verifiability) of such people in other formats, e.g. publishing a biography in a peer reviewed journal or industry magazine to create at least a degree of separation, which can then be used by non-affiliated editors to write an article. You might also request that less-connected people create Wikipedia articles, either in "real life" or at WikiProject Scuba diving or other relevant WikiProjects. If you choose to continue to create articles you are closely connected with, you might submit them to Articles for Creation first, and/or solicit more peer-review before "going live", to better ensure neutrality. You might also re-examine your articles to remove or rewrite anything that can reasonably be interpreted as promotional, subjective, undue, or one-sided, and focus on the highest quality, most independent sources available, even at the risk of a shorter article. I don't mean to criticize your contributions as a whole, as you undoubtedly have welcome expertise that can improve articles, but hope you realize how intimate knowledge of certain subjects can impede the creation of impartial and proportional representation of said subjects. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Does not bother me in the least that you second guess my contributions. Making note on the Rubicon page is also a nice addition. That was the first article I wrote and cut my teeth on. I'm willing to bet many authors back then did something similar back then. Everyone has to learn somewhere. Just too bad the community has a habit of eating its young now. I'd love nothing more than to go back and make the Rubicon page better knowing what I know nine years, 30 new articles, and 3300+ edits later but also have not because of those same rules. I'm rarely on here anymore because I spend more time replying to this kind of post than making quality improvements. I stand by my prior work and would love to see where I am not perceived as neutral. Would love it even more if people didn't complain about it and actually fixed issues. I really don't see myself changing my habits for picking articles. I have a few editors I ask for assistance when I feel it is needed (have sent numerous emails asking them to intervene when I felt it was too close to a COI for me. That leaves the real work to fall to others to remove anything I post if they think it is too bad to remain here. Since I am so rarely here anymore, I'm betting nobody will be heartbroken over my occasional work. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued support! You are what makes Wikipedia such a welcoming and special place! Please keep up the good work. It forces us all to work harder to make our work the best it can be. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Unicorn (spider)

Harrias ^talk 12:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bat-eared fox duplicate response

I created the duplicate page Bat-eared fox (Otocyon megalotis) because I had to make this wikipedia page as an assignment for class. I wanted to keep it separate, so I could be sure my work would not be deleted before it could be graded. I have merged the information from my page to the original Bat-eared fox page. PLEASE do NOT alter the changes I have made until at least 2 months from today because again, I am being graded for this page. After that time period you are free to remove or keep any information as you see fit. Sorry for the confusion and I hope you understand. Thanks! --Carec-17 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem

I'm very sorry Animalparty , but I have absolutely no idea how to make a Taxbox! I have tried before but I just can't do it! Megaraptor12345 (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Eucteniza

Harrias ^talk 06:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Top 100 historical figures listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Top 100 historical figures. Since you had some involvement with the Top 100 historical figures redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Bosstopher (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure!

Right away Animalparty!Megaraptor12345 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dean Photo permission

Hello,

Dr. Stephen O Dean gave me permission to upload his picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StephenODeanPicture.jpg I emailed [email protected] to clear up any issues with Dr. Dean cced. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@WikiHelper2134: If the email has been sent, you should add {{OTRS pending}} to the image's file page, to indicate that the permission is pending verification and prevent possible deletion. Note I am not part of OTRS, and any questions or follow-up should go be directed to the Volunteer Response Team. Best wishes, --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Copholandrevus

Thank you for your explanation. I'll fix articles accordingly. Any comments are welcome! cheers!--Hanberke (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, could you please make some proper correction in Copholandrevus Taxonomy lead, so that I can apply in new articles. Thank you in advance. --Hanberke (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Catching That

Thanks for catching the gender-neutral pronoun ambiguity there with the word "them". Very often it works as a singular, but you were right; it did come off as plural with that sentence's syntax. Thanks for that. 👍

– SarahTehCat (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@SarahTehCat: No problem! And as I tried to state in my cut-short edit summary, I'm open to possible edits that convey clarity, precision, and gender neutrality, so long as comprehension is maintained. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Regarding said part of the article, how do you feel about using pronoun-sets like ze/zir, etc. Granted, it's not used very often at all among the general public, but that's because exposure is so low; plus, not knowing a word or term is what wikilinkification is for. ;) Plus, they are, after all, explicitly singular, which is what is desired in this situation: gender-neutral pronouns that are explicitly singular. Are they not? :) – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@SarahTehCat:I think adding ze/zir would introduce more confusion than is needed. Seeing as how Parthenogenesis is largely about a biological phenomenon that is naturally absent in humans (biotechnology aside), if "her" in reference to human females is unwanted, we could simply drop the pronoun, which in this case is in an non-essential clause: e.g. "The process may offer a way for creating stem cells that are genetically matched to a particular woman for the treatment of degenerative diseases. that might affect her." However, I am not advocating similar changes (pronoun swapping, or dropping) on any other articles, and would caution that the use of ze/zir, or even swapping "her" for "them" is likely to be controversial on most articles unless consensus is reached beforehand. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I could agree with that. :)

Still, minor sentence/clause or not, if a pronoun must be added, I think it better be an accurate one, that's all. Screw consensus; an encyclopædia needs accuracy, and the fact of the matter is that if a person's preferred pronoun or, in cases where said pronoun cannot be determined (e.g. historical figures with no recorded personal usage toward a particular way), their gender, a gender-specific pronoun should not be used. Only with cases where an accurate answer is impossible should consensus supercede the former; pronoun usage is not such a case since the relationship between gender, sex, and pronouns have been very thoroughly hashed out within and outside of academia. :/ – SarahTehCat (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice

Thanks for your notice. I will find some articles if I can. (User: ZappyLongNose) 8:54 29 May (UTC)

Murder of Carol Wilkinson

Many thanks for your comments with regards citations and I will make those amends asap. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC))

With regards the links to roughjustice, this is a website that is the text from a TV programme that aired here in the UK on BBC, so this is a reliable source. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC))

Opinion sought on wiki page

Hi there, as someone who seems well respected and level headed, please can you give your opinion on whether this page I have created is notable for inclusion. I believe it is but I am being challenged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantams_Banter_(podcast)

Many thanks (RedJulianG40 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

Species complex & syntopy

Thanks for your message! There's still work to do on species complex, but I'm working on some other projects first... I'm OK for including syntopy in sympatry but creating an article was an easier solution for the moment to cover this. Tylototriton (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Thomas Crane (1843–1903)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Thomas Crane (1843–1903), Animalparty!

Wikipedia editor Eustachiusz just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

a nice little article!

To reply, leave a comment on Eustachiusz's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

knife edge maneuver

Why the deletion from knife edge?algocu (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Algocu:If you're referring to Knife Edge (disambiguation), I removed it because there was no article to direct readers towards, contra to the Disambiguation guidelines and Manual of style for Disambiguation. Dab pages aren't to be directories of every conceivable mention or usage of a term, they are to quickly help reader find an encyclopedia article about or discussing that title. Dab pages should not have citations, as they are not articles themselves. If there is a single article that discusses the knife edge maneuver, or perhaps an entry in something like List of flight maneuvers, in that case it would it be beneficial to link the article at a disambiguation page. I hope this answers your question, let me know if you have any others. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

update: I now see you've already added the link to a relevant article. Great! --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Berberomeloe

Thanks for the nudge to improve this - I originally had it just as a bridge to B. majalis, but in chasing the authority, I found some interesting material that belongs on the genus page. I am no entomologist, but I think I have got it roughly right applying general taxonomic knowledge. seglea (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Seglea:Looks good! Thanks for your contributions. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Animalparty,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Please show good faith and stop suggesting editors are "sprinkling 'pseudoscientific'"

If you object to something, you should make policy or guideline based arguments, not heckle. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. Your posts on WP:FTN are lowering the level and sucking oxygen out of the room. See this, this, this and this, all of them from yesterday and today and all of them basically the same "joke". You should stop before you're blocked for bludgeoning the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 09:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC).
• Came here to say the same. If you don't like WP:FTN, you don't have to interact with it. I'm sure you can find better things to do with your time than to troll the discussions. There are plenty of other places at this website where you can contribute. jps (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, Bishonen, and ජපස: Got it. You guys have a very serious job to do. I apologize for not appreciating the seriousness of the seriousity. Keep fighting the good fight. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Reply to your comments at Scapulus (warning intentionally extreme examples to make the point)

I'm posting this here rather than continuing on Scapulus's talk page in part because I'm using intentionally extreme examples so even if they're likely gone for good, I feel it isn't the right place to post it. To follow on from what Salvio giuliano said, it would generally be fine for (within reason) an editor to discuss whether we should include a tweet or whatever of someone misgendering a living person, and even quoting that tweet on occasion if necessary. Which it might be helpful to do at least once, since a simple tweet of a editor A misgendering person C is rarely going to be something we need to quote unless there's something unique about the wording.

But while editors can have whatever opinions they want, their only job here should be to discuss how we can improve Wikipedia in a a reasonably civil manner and without intentionally violating BLP. So they need to keep their opinions somewhere else, especially when they violate BLP or are uncivil or ultimately if they are offensive and unhelpful to the goal of improving Wikipedia. While we allow some latitude for editors to post stuff which is more personal opinion or chit-chat than related to improving wikipedia even stuff which may be mildly edgy, given the need to build a community and given the diversity of different view points and world views of what's civil discourse etc; editors cannot take it to far. But taking it too far is something Scapulus clearly intentionally did and with no apparent willingness to improve.

To use examples related to those you gave, we have Aisha#Age at time of marriage and Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha which some may find offensive and which can be highly contentious to the extent that one is fully protected right now I think for that reason. Editors are free to within reason discuss how we should cover the various aspects of Aisha's age in relation to Muhammad. However an editor who feels the need to keep telling everyone that "Muhammad was a paedophile", is unwelcome here. And that isn't even a BLP issue.

And likewise we may have ejaculation and facial (sexual act) article which may be offensive to many. But an editor who feels it necessary to say "I feel photo G is better. It makes person E look far cuter. I can easily imagine ejaculating over his/her face with photo G but not with photo I." (or probably a cruder version of this) is probably going to be instantly indefinitely blocked. And frankly, I don't think it will even matter if person E is living.

A key issue in all three examples (the two I gave here and Scapulus's comment) whatever point the editor is trying to make does not require us to hear their personal opinion on the other stuff. And so once it becomes clear the editor is intentionally expressing their offensive opinion for the sake of it as it is for my photo example, and it was for Scapulus's comment, it's right that we say goodbye to this editor. It does not matter how many people may share their opinion. They can use their own blog or whatever, to express their opinions which have no relevance to how to improve Wikipedia, especially opinions which are BLP violations.

Note that these sort of comments are gratuitous enough that I had to seriously consider whether to post this. I decided to do so since I'm hoping Salvio is wrong and you for whatever reason really didn't realise at least when you posted why there's a big difference between us hosting encyclopaedic material that some or many may find offensive, and an editor just intentionally posting offensive stuff that doesn't help us to improve Wikipedia. (Since otherwise your comment seems to be a clear cut WP:POINT violation IMO.) The only part of your comments that does have truth is that you're likely to end up blocked if you are unable to understand the difference, and I believe it would be better for Wikipedia if instead you're able to come to some understanding of the difference between what you're trying to defend, and us hosting material that may be offensive.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for posting this. I simply feel the swift and severe punishment did not fit the alleged crimes. I wasn't praising Scapulus' comments but I think words like "hateful" and "-phobic" get flung about far too freely to both stifle and inflame discussions. Sarcasm, off-color jokes, and less-than-kind words get flung about all the time on talk page discussions, often by seasoned editors and admins. But maybe I'm callous. Maybe I need to take a seminar. Maybe I need to pick through all of Scapulus' edit history to find more evidence of being a bad actor. But I don't go looking to be offended, nor presume to take offense on behalf of others. If some people are looking to block or ban me for what I've posted, let them try. I wish you all the best. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)